Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Administrator instructions

Centralized discussion
Proposals: policy other Discussions Ideas

Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Information on the process[edit]

What may be nominated for deletion here:

  • Pages in these namespaces: Book:, Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, Module:, Topic:, and the various Talk: namespaces
  • Userboxes (regardless of namespace)
  • Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Before nominating a page for deletion[edit]

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace
  • If you want to have your own personal userpage deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}}. If you wish your user talk page (or user talk page archives) to be deleted, this is the correct location to request that.
Deleting pages in other people's userspace
  • Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}.
  • Take care not to bite newcomers - sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first.
  • Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion.
  • User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion.
  • Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages
  • Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere.
  • Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages
  • It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable.
  • WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider userfication.
  • Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion
  • Normal editing that doesn't require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems.
  • Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies[edit]

How to list pages for deletion[edit]

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Administrator instructions[edit]

Administrator instructions for closing discussions can be found here.

Contents


Current discussions[edit]

Pages currently being considered are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

Purge server cache

July 31, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:202.186.7.190/Wong Tyan Tzu

Draft:Miss Grand International 2015[edit]

Draft:Miss Grand International 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft for recreation of an article that has been deleted multiple times, both at AfD and through speedy deletion (it has been speedied as both A7 (article about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject) and G4 (recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). After the latest speedy deletion the article title was even salted to prevent recreation. And in addition to the previous deletions the current draft has been declined at AfC as being insufficiently sourced. I have nominated it for speedy deletion per A4, but the speedy tag is being repeatedly removed by IPs with an obvious connection to the subject (judging by their contributions) so I'm now nominating it for MfD. The event has been deemed as non-notable multiple times and the current draft is no better, with not a single reliable source about the subject of the article, everything is either sourced to the organisation that arranges the event, or sources that talk about individual possible contestants, and even those sources are almost exclusively blogs, Wikipedia articles (on both the English language WP and other Wikipedias) or articles and blurbs on other Wikis. There is also no way to check, through sources independent of the subject, if the names mentioned in the article actually intend to take part in the event, or if they've been added just to make the list of "references" longer. Thomas.W talk 08:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Shujit Rajbanshi[edit]

User:Shujit Rajbanshi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:Bharat Valeja
User:Bia Alloush
User:Birgitta Eri
User:Kevin Weber
User:Dr Fazeela Abbasi
User:Liladhar madawi
User:Marcus Kitzmann
User:Mir Waseem Bugti (User:Waseemkhanbugti)
User:Mohit Ramwani
User:Navin Goradara
User:Ratanca Ngabang
User:Stefano Fallaha

WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:FAKEARTICLE ("He is a tellented student"), WP:G11, WP:NOTHERE (none of these editors have edited anything in en wp other than their userspace and in a few cases requesting a change of username) DexDor (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment/question Is it appropriate to consider this many unrelated deletions in a single proposal? Assuming that it is, my response to all but one of them would be delete with the exception of User:Mir Waseem Bugti who would be a keep for the reason that he has substantially contributed to the article Cadet College Pishin with his most recent edit (albeit a minor one) to that article being in March of this year. With fewer than 100 words, his user page is very brief, unlike some of the others in the list, and is not overly self-promoting. Indeed there are no social media or other off-wiki links in his user page. The fact that he may have taken lengthy breaks from editing is not enough justification to delete his user page. (Indeed, I took a much longer break after my first edit before I started editing regularly -- people do come back). Also, I see that nobody ever welcomed him, so I just sent him a nice plate of belated Twinkle cookies; who knows, we might end up with another good editor some day.  Etamni | ✉  08:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

July 30, 2015[edit]

Draft:Zeeshan Haider[edit]

Draft:Zeeshan Haider (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft namespace recreation of a repeatedly deleted and recreated autobiographical page MopSeeker FoxThree! 13:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Zeeshan Haider and Zeeshan haider have been created and speedily deleted five times between them and they are now both salted. Author is serving a short block at this moment for repeatedly reposting the same content, and for repeated removal of speedy deletion tags therefrom. I hesitate to officially !vote delete on a draft purely on notability grounds, but author is clearly trying to promote himself, and there's nothing here to provide any hope of eventually having a salvageable article. --Finngall talk 14:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm torn on this one. I did some Google searches for this name and got a decent quantity of hits but many were non-English and, since I don't speak the other languages used, I could not determine if this person is notable or not. If someone who can speak the relevant languages can give us a "yes/borderline/no" opinion on this person's notability, that would help a lot. However, if this editor keeps insisting on trying to create an article without clearly demonstrating that this person is clearly notable, he will find himself topic-banned - which would really just be a specific injunction for him to follow Wikipedia's existing WP:Conflict of interest guidelines which all of us are supposed to follow anyways. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

July 29, 2015[edit]

User:Yungshawty[edit]

User:Yungshawty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

While I've removed a flagrant BLP violation, the page remains laced with weird rants, at least one overt threat against the user's local transit system, an eccentric collection of userboxes -- but virtually nothing related to Wikipedia. The editor hasn't edited for two years, and hasn't edited outside their userspace for 5 years. The editor's comments about himself don't portray him in a favorable light, and the page could easily be an attack page by an impersonator. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom, but undelete in the unlikely event that user ever return, rebutt the impersonator notion, and request undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, agreeing with the caveat added by SmokeyJoe. North of Eden (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete but if kept, edit to remove additional BLP violations and add NOINDEX to the user page and talk page, since they are showing up on searches for rapper "Yung $hawty". A review of the entire page, including rants, including userboxes (some of which he created) and significant off-wiki content suggests entire page was created by same person. Style and contents of writing suggests moderately-educated person trying to present as "gangsta" (if this makes any sense). Concur that user hasn't edited in non-userspace areas for five years, and even then, edits were trivial. WP:USER and WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK are the controlling policies.  Etamni | ✉  08:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete because of the inappropriate rants. It seems that no one left him a message about the purpose of a userpage at the time. A message on the talk page explaining that the page can be undeleted provided that specific material is removed right away may be appropriate. While there were only a few small mainspace edits, they were mostly good ones. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Courtesy blank and protect or, if it is deleted, replace the page with a mostly-blank or blank protected page so that search engines won't retain the previous version. Whether it is {{noindex}} or not won't be important if it's locked down. If the page history is deleted it should be un-deleted if the original editor logs back in (assuming there are no serious concerns over impersonation, of course). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Steve Humble[edit]

Draft:Steve Humble (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The more I look at this draft the more I think WP:TNT is required. It's quite possible that the gentleman has notability, but the sheer number of spam links in the references to sellers of his own books and the fact that this is a blatant WP:COI piece makes me think that this piece is advert oriented and/or something to allow the gentleman to seek to use Wikipedia to enhance rather than record his notability. Such things need to go and the contributing eponymous author needs to be advised to stand away from his apparent autobiography. This draft in this condition is the wrong place to start to create an article on the gentleman

Much advice has been given, but not followed. Additionally there is a (currently open) Sockpuppetry report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/S.P.Numbers. Fiddle Faddle 19:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Agree with WP:TNT. The only effort the editor has really made is to WP:BOMBARD the page making it incredibly tedious to judge the merits of the sources. When sampling they typically only mention the subject in passing if truly at all. If this subject is indeed notable, then it will be remade by someone else. Sulfurboy (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and also delete Draft:Steve Humble (aka Dr Maths), a substantial duplicate. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Jackmcbarn: while the other draft does not have the same spam issues, I do not see it as a useful building block for a new draft or a future article. I have no objection if you want to add it to this nomination (and 'do that paperwork'), but wonder if it might be a distraction. It may be that we leave it lie and the closing admin chooses to make a WP:BURO deletion assuming this discussion closes as deletion. Fiddle Faddle 19:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In view of the !vote by Dream Focus, below, I suggest that the second draft be left out of this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 19:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep The page has no tag saying its being considered for deletion. He list a page that mentions him in the news at [1], but the New York Times bit is hidden behind a paywall. A quick search shows this [2] Is that a reliable source? Dream Focus 19:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Dream Focus: I think you may be confused. There is a proper deletion notice on Draft:Steve Humble. That has been since the start of this discussion. The discussion remains valid even if the notice there is removed. The original author has been notified correctly. There is not one on Draft:Steve Humble (aka Dr Maths), and it is not, certainly currently, a part of this discussion. Fiddle Faddle 19:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • My mistake. You have to scroll down quite a bit to see it so I hadn't noticed it there. Dream Focus 20:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • A feature of the AFC Helper Script is that it keeps "article things" and "Review things" in separate notional compartments. I'm not entirely surprised that you missed it. The gentleman might well actually be notable, as I believe I said int he nomination. My contention is that this draft simply will not produce a valid article on him. You are more than welcome to adopt it and shake it into submission. Were this AFD on a main namespace article rather than MFD on a draft I would support your argument as a rationale to keep the thing. Fiddle Faddle 20:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I see no reason to delete a draft that can be edited into an article. Dream Focus 20:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The challenge is that the current contributing editor, who is, at present, probably the sole person who has any interest in the draft, is unlikely to pick it up and run with it well, and seems unwilling to hear advice. I appreciate your stance. I wonder if you might attempt either or both of a word in his ear and/or grabbing hold of the draft yourself, or with others. Produce or show me a great draft and I will withdraw the nomination like a shot. Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 28, 2015[edit]

User:Seun emitomo/Books/how to apply brand love to enhance customer loyalty[edit]

User:Seun emitomo/Books/how to apply brand love to enhance customer loyalty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks like some kind of original research promoted on user page, hasn't contributed elsewhere, questionable what to do with it.... Sadads (talk) 17:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted[edit]

MediaWiki:Talk-page restricted (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There is no reason for this to exist, it was created in clear violation of policy (if it were a template it would easily qualify as a T2 CSD) and has absolutely no use in its present state. Kharkiv07 (T) 03:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • While I believe Kharkiv07's description to be completely false, it serves no particular purpose now, and hasn't done so for a year. I would suggest keeping it until relevant Arbcom cases are closed. I'd do it myself, but I would undoubtedly be accused of destroying evidence.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: useful. 333-blue 06:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • How is this useful? Per Kww, delete upon completion of the relevant arbitration case. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete after Arb case closes unless this was some kind of bizarre DS enforcement, this is really sketchy. Brustopher (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to a subpage of the ArbCom case, and leave it to the judgement of the Arbs and their clerks. At MfD we should stear clear of ArbCom active cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 27, 2015[edit]

User:Newtokyoterror[edit]

User:Newtokyoterror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Per WP:BLP. This user's only edits have been vandalism to Joanna Wang; at least one of the vandal edits have been to rename her "Chicken Joanna". Page serves no use to the project. I was going to tag it for WP:G10 speedy deletion but it's not quite over that line. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as weird random stuff with no useful purpose, not that we are here. Next time just blank it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 26, 2015[edit]

Draft:Kushal Awatarsing[edit]

Draft:Kushal Awatarsing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Not notable at any time that this draft has been created or this article has been created, often by this gentleman or by friends, colleagues, associates, or admirers of the gentleman. CSD A7 5 times in main namespace. Vanity piece. Fiddle Faddle 16:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

  • support deletion and salting per above. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 25, 2015[edit]

User:Adk352/sandbox[edit]

User:Adk352/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Seems to be an abandoned userspace draft. Magog the Ogre (t c) 23:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Redirect to John F. Bolt. No reason to delete, nor reason to bring to MfD and waste time and space on discussing it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete While I agree with the sentiment that perhaps it wasn't necessary to bring this here, I don't think a redirect from the user space is really necessary. Not really much there worth persevering, while the sources are slightly different, this doesn't push me to a redirect. The other article basically covers what is written there.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Influential Voices/Maxwell billieon[edit]

User:Influential Voices/Maxwell billieon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned userspace draft. Magog the Ogre (t c) 18:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Presumably a copy of something (of what I cannot find) by an editor now blocked (although for reasons not noted). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

User:TehPlaneFreak/Home of Mike & Jay[edit]

User:TehPlaneFreak/Home of Mike & Jay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
(merged later — Keφr 13:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC))
User:TehPlaneFreak/Mike & Jay (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:TehPlaneFreak/United Nations Security Council Resolution 2133 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:TehPlaneFreak/Mike & Jay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:TehPlaneFreak/Doomspire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:TehPlaneFreak/World War III (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User:TehPlaneFreak/Thatchertropolis, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE about a game that would probably be eligible for WP:A11 were it in article space. Misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost, not eligible for WP:U5 since the user has nontrivial mainspace contributions. —Keφr 08:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete If you look at the navbox at the bottom PlaneFreak mentions that it's his own game. Definite NOTWEBHOST misuse here. Brustopher (talk) 09:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Made up stuff, hoax material. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 24, 2015[edit]

User:POLLY GAMMA~[edit]

User:POLLY GAMMA~ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This new user copied my userpage as their own. Normally I would be flattered by this, but they are falsely representing themselves as having Template Editor, Rollbacker, and Reviewer user rights. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 16:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • {{db-hoax}}? —Keφr 11:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete and block the troll unless they respond. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 23, 2015[edit]

User:Sai nsrs[edit]

User:Sai nsrs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per WP:UP#PROMO and WP:NOTRESUME. P 1 9 9   20:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

  • And by a non-contributor. Delete per nom. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:OdaneGibson[edit]

User:OdaneGibson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as per WP:UP#PROMO. P 1 9 9   19:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Old business[edit]

July 22, 2015[edit]

Draft:Porn Terminator[edit]

Draft:Porn Terminator (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Submitted four times without any real improvement. Overloading the AfC review process with obviously no care to edit the page. Fails WP:NSOFT. And even if there was 'improvement' I doubt this could pass notability concerns. Sulfurboy (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment I made one last edit (added a notable reference) few seconds before your review. I am not sure if you saw it. Please look into it again. Thanks again for yoru time and consideration.99.225.134.195 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Ben
    • Comment I don't see and don't imagine many other would see an article from yourbrainonporn.com as being reliable or notable. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment In addition, this is a unique resource and there is nothing like it on Wikipedia. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 22:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Ben
    • Comment Not sure what you are trying to imply, but uniqueness is not a qualifier for notability. Independent and reliable coverage is. Thanks. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • CommentSo that I understand the process better, yourbainonporn.com, a non-commerical science based site only mentions one software in their article that is Porn Terminator. Isn't that a notable reference? Having a commendation from CNET in their review ... Isn't that sufficeint? According to Wikipedia about CNET: "CNET is an American media website that publishes reviews, news, articles, blogs, podcasts and videos on technology and consumer electronics globally. CNET is the highest-read technology news source on the Web, with over 200 million readers per month, being among the 200 most visited websites globally, as of 2015". Please look into this again. I hope these two are notable references. If CNET does not qualify? What does? Thanks again for reconsidering this. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Ben
  • Comment One thing to add is that, CNET states in their review : We recommend this program to all users. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC) Ben
  • There are attempts being made to improve this draft. I think Keep ought to be the correct outcome here, and we should give the contributing editor time to fix the issues and resubmit until it is either acceptable or is proven to be a continuous fail. I appreciate the motivation to nominate this for deletion and would have done the same in the nominator's place. Now, though, it stands a chance, and should be granted that chance. Fiddle Faddle 16:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The nominator's concern is that the draft's subject fails our notability guidelines. If a subject is not notable, no amount of editing can remedy that. Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for reconsidering the Porn Terminator page submission. The CNET review of Porn Terminator termed the software a 'powerful tool' and as stated in a prior comment, CNET recommends the software to all users - strong recommendation. CNET is the authority/gold standard in technology/software reviews. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Ben
    • Comment Please understand CNET reviews can be sponsered and sometimes it can be impossible to tell when they are. This is why it alone can't show notability. Further, a good CNET review could open up the possibility for thousands of articles to be included that would otherwise fail WP:GNG. We need to see substantial coverage from preferably more than one source to show notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Comment CNET is regarded as the #1 technology review website ranking #152 on Alexa globally and #70 in the US. The said, the request is to consider the CNET review (from July 2009) in conjunction with the other references including WikiHow and the non-profit website 'Your Brain On Porn'. Wikihow (Alexa ranking 187 globally - 140 in the US) as far as I can tell do not usually list software in their articles. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Ben
      • Comment I have no idea what the Alexa ranking has to do with anything; that'd be like saying well EBAY is ranked high on Alexa so we should trust every product listing there. The discussion should revolve around wikipedia policy, please. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Comment It seems that you are cherry picking from my comments anything that may be viewed as negative in any way. At the same time, somehow ignoring what Wikipedia itself in its own articles have written about CNET and WikiHow. Furthermore, you rendered CNET (Owned by CBS) reviews as worthless and casted a doubt on it's integrity. WikiHow's listing of our software is ignored. To be fair, it is best to view Wikiepedia's own articles about both CNET and WikiHow before deeming them irrelevant in your comments. 99.225.134.195 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)Ben
  • Comment It should be noted no changes have been made on the page in a week. Paging you Fiddle Faddle, so you're aware since you put it under review. Sulfurboy (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I see nothing significant in that. At the end of this discussion a view will have been formed. Fiddle Faddle 22:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Adaora Ayoade/sandbox[edit]

User:Adaora Ayoade/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Promotional WP:FAKEARTICLE about a person who has an article in mainspace already (see Adaora Angela Ayoade, though this article will likely be deleted as Ayoade doesn't seem to be notable). Everymorning talk 21:49, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Rho-ann[edit]

User:Rho-ann (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE/STALEDRAFT. User showed up in 2008, created this page and a similar one at Summary of trojan war, then disappeared. BDD (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - Quite obviously abandoned and violates WP. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete WP:G12 - CorenSearchBot flagged this as a copyvio on a different page, but this appears to be substantially the same. Maybe also per WP:G13. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Not a copyvio The webpage it copies from is Wikipedia's Trojan war, which isn't copyrighted. Also not g13 applicable, because no AfC tag. Delete anyway as a pointless duplicate of text already in an article. Brustopher (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
It is copied without attribution, though, which is a copyvio. Wikipedia's license requires attribution. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
"Public-domain and other free content, such as a Wikipedia mirror, do not fall under this criterion, nor is mere lack of attribution of such works a reason for speedy deletion." But you have a point, I'll attribute the text. Brustopher (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, clearly not a G12 then. Thanks for explaining, I had missed that. Delete then, as you said, because it's a copy of existing text which is of no value to the encyclopedia. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Just blank next time. Yes, delete the redirect in mainspace as polluting mainspace, but blanked pages in old users accounts have no cost, unlike the MfD nomination itself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 21, 2015[edit]

Draft:Rafael Him[edit]

Draft:Rafael Him (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Paid promotional editing for a political campaign, that ought to be removed even from draft space DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails NPOL and not far off from being G13 Sulfurboy (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

User:BigUns/Theonewhereiintroducemyselfandgiveinformationonthewellbeingoftheearthandthepeoplewhoinhabitit Wowthisisalongtitle[edit]

User:BigUns/Theonewhereiintroducemyselfandgiveinformationonthewellbeingoftheearthandthepeoplewhoinhabitit Wowthisisalongtitle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Misuse of user space as a web host. A mild case, but I doubt this subpage created by a user who's been absent for six years is meant to be of any use to the project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. per nom. This has zero use to the project. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Just someone having a bit of fun in their userspace. I don't see how this is any worse than someone creating an "About me" subpage for their userpage. Brustopher (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Don't care The pedantic follow-the-rules part of me says delete it, the "it's not doing any harm, let's not be WP:POINTy part of me says keep it. In any case, has the nominator reached out to the page-creator by email? If not, it would be wrong to delete it without doing that first. Also, since the page isn't violating any rules other than the rule about inappropriate use of userspace for long-term "web hosting," any deletion should be a softdelete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I have not attempted to email the user. The user was active for a brief period over six years ago and has never returned to the project. I'm not exactly enthused about the implications of sending an email which would contain my own personal email address to a random person on the internet who apparently has no further interest in Wikipedia. I don't oppose emailing the user, but I respectfully decline to do so myself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per Brustopher. Doesn't really matter. APerson (talk!) 03:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Challenge the nominator to account for the costs of the page versus the costs of nominating it at MfD. Was this a positive contribution? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Dhanusree sukumar[edit]

User:Dhanusree sukumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK and WP:NOTWEBHOST. Everymorning talk 11:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - For reasons stated above. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • IF Sukumar1976 (talk · contribs) and Dhanusree sukumar (talk · contribs) are one in the same, then do not delete, but offer to assist Sukumar1976 in moving it to his "user page" or to a sub-page in his "user-space." Otherwise, delete as it is clear that the page is being edited by someone other than its creator in a way that is mis-using user-space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neither account is a contributor to the project. Nice pictures of a pretty little girl notwithstanding. Refer to Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Facebook, for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Dubaimachines.com[edit]

Draft:Dubaimachines.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A page that simply isn't notable and keeps getting resubmitted with little to no improvement. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete and lightly salt. Oh wait, there is no such thing as "lightly salt" (I guess we could delete it and prohibit non-confirmed/autoconfirmed editors from creating it, but that would defeat the whole point of Draft: space). How about instead of deleting, delete the content portion of the page and put a dummy "AFC declined" notice at the top saying that, due to a consensus reached at this discussion that the company was not notable as of [closing date of this discussion] any new submission will not even be considered unless the submitter adds a comment to the talk page saying he has read and understands Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not AND the submission clearly demonstrates that the company is clearly notable (i.e. not in the "grey area" of "maybe notable, maybe not notable").davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment As with all stale AFC submissions, if this page is not modified for 6 months, it will be eligible for WP:G13 speedy-deletion, without prejudice against un-deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 20, 2015[edit]

User:CatboatCove/sandbox[edit]

User:CatboatCove/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT. The draft was copied from Mahone Bay, and has no significant changes. In fact, it appears to have been abandoned in favour of a draft on the user page which I've moved to User:CatboatCove/Mahone Bay. That draft has an outline of material for article expansion, and appears to be the working draft although the editor has not worked on it for some time. Whpq (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment The user has email turned on. Has the nominator tried contacting the user by email? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Reply - No, I hav enot tried to contact via email. I don't see that as really necessary. There is nothing of substance that was done in this draft. The real draft work by this editor was done on his user page which I have moved to User:CatboatCove/Mahone Bay which is not part of this nomination for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Kyojr22[edit]

User:Kyojr22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fake article for Kyo Jr Sigua. Whpq (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See also User:Pokefair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)/MfD and Kyo Jr Sigua (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)/AfD, both of which are up for deletion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete unless the editor is this person and this is the primary account under which he will edit. In any case do not keep both User:Kyojr22 or User:Pokefair - either delete one or delete both. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Pokefair[edit]

User:Pokefair (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Fake article. The attempted article in main space has been deleted. Whpq (talk) 04:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

July 18, 2015[edit]

User:X-static[edit]

User:X-static (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Self-promotion by a non-contributor Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete - user page is being used for self-promtion. -- Whpq (talk) 04:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. The user has a few edits not disguising that he is here for self-promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Unsure of best solution as of 04:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC) the page is fine but the page history is not. This may be better handled by educating the editor on what Wikipedia is and what it is not. If that doesn't work, it should be handled as an editor-who-needs-handholding problem not as a page-content problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Poletaria[edit]

User:Poletaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:FAKEARTICLE without any content apart from an infobox. Would be WP:CSD#U5-eligible, were it not for the bizarre addition the user has made to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Participants that, amusingly, survives to this day. —Keφr 09:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. WP:CSD#U5-eligible. The wording of U5 "the owner has made few or no edits ..." could be improved using words such as "useful", or changing "edits" to "contributions". The page is clearly not material intended to contribute to the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • SoftDelete without prejudice against un-deletion. The most obvious possible use this has to anyone other than the creator is to researchers who are studying the use or attempted use of user pages for the purposes of humor, or similar studies of user pages, and I'll be the first to admit that even at that, the value is so low that "nothing of value is lost" if it is soft-deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom. Utter nonsense. -- P 1 9 9   14:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 16, 2015[edit]

User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes[edit]

User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Abandoned draft by a long gone user. All material is basically a collection of disparate facts which is already in the corresponding articles. I.e. in the currents state it is WP:SYNTH. -M.Altenmann >t 08:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Is too good to delete. It is a valid subject of history. It does not contain any NPOV violation, POLEMICs, and the alleged WP:SYNTH I don't agree with. It is sourced. It is closely related to the article Historiography in the Soviet Union, but expands on it. A prime example is Denial of the Holodomor. At worst, blank with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}, but this is not the sort of shallow & brief AFC cruft that should be deleted just for being old. History topics, especially, should never be deleted for being old. I think Talk:Historiography in the Soviet Union should be notified, as well as the WikiProjects tagging that page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
    • You say "prime example is Denial of the Holodomor". So what? it is a full-blown article in itself. My point is that the current article has no additional value, rehashing what has already been said in wikipedia in greater detail. "WP:SYNTH" I meant that the page simply puts mechanically together a bunch of various topics. If decided that such an article is necessary for wikipedia, it may be just as mechanically cooked from the individual ones. -M.Altenmann >t 06:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • These special circumstances do matter. I didn't notice that the user has not returned since being temporarily banned. Noting that the WP:SYNTH concerns means that the value of the page is probably restricted to its author, I would support soft deletion, that is, delete, but allow for undeletion should the user return to productivity and request undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It is possible that he has returned under a different name. He was and probably still is under a "limit 1 account, tell ARBCOM which account you will use before you resume editing" restriction. I haven't seen any specific indication that he has returned under a different name, I'm just saying it is possible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Nalini Prava Deka[edit]

Draft:Nalini Prava Deka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft has been declined six times with little or no improvement. Given this, it's unlikely that the draft will ever be improved enough. APerson (talk!) 12:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Not sure The submitter is not responding to feedback or offers to help. The draft is stagnant. HAs enough time passed to justify deleting this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note There are copyright violations/quote-farming in old revisions, which needs to be deleted first, in case of an undeletion after this MfD. If deletion is carried out, both a revision delete (rationale RD1) and a page deletion needs to be done. (tJosve05a (c) 16:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Not a worthless shallow draft, the sort of this that justified the drive to auto-delete most old drafts. Advise the author to register (Wikipedia:Why create an account?), do some editing to improve existing articles, and then expect to be treated with more respect by other Wikipedians. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I still think this is not the sort of thing to be deleted. What is at fault here is the editor and the AfC process, not the content. New editors should not be helped to write new articles by themselves. A competent writer can work out how to do that all by himself. This content should remain as a draft, or in userspace, which is where it would be if not for the AfC process. The content is connected to Bhabananda Deka. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - It would be better for a wholly new editor to start again with a properly sourced article. If this person is truly notable, then an article will be created. Persisting with this version is wasting a great deal of reviewers time and effort to very little purpose.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Sometimes deletion is the only sensible thing. The editor seems not to wish to participate, which is a strong indicator that it will not make forward progress Fiddle Faddle 19:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete For the reason mentioned by the two fellow AfC reviewers above. Articles such as this waste reviewers time in an already horribly backlogged system. Editor shows no sign of wanting to make improvements and is obviously just casting out his fishing pole hoping to get a bite from either a inexperienced reviewer or one that might be a bit tired and misstep. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article could be improved, but it has 13 inline references and enough information to create an article from. It's not hurting anybody in the draft namespace. Also, please WP:DONTBITE. --Gerrit CUTEDH 12:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    Gerrit, I don't think deleting this article would be bitey. I don't think it's hostility to delete an article that's just being submitted over and over again with no improvements to the promotional tone (i.e. extensive use of WP:WORDS). APerson (talk!) 01:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Probably notable, and there's enough references to be fixable. The ones to delete are the ones that are both repeatedly submitted with no improvement and hopeleesly unlikely to make an acceptable article. ` DGG ( talk ) 02:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

July 17, 2015[edit]

User:10harryo/Laurentia blue star plant spiecies[edit]

User:10harryo/Laurentia blue star plant spiecies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT – Has not been edited since September 2011. North America1000 12:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as test edit. -- P 1 9 9   13:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

User:22baker/What do lizards eat[edit]

User:22baker/What do lizards eat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:STALEDRAFT – Has not been edited since June 2014. North America1000 12:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:17, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as test edit. -- P 1 9 9   13:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy[edit]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This article is an editors essay. Its name is indicating that it is WikiProject Football flag policy. This is incorrect and the only flag policy currently in use is Wikipedia:MOSFLAG. It was clarified in this archive that it is not the football projects policy. This should be deleted or probably moved to User:Danish Expert user space. Blethering Scot 17:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

There actually isn't any flag policy at all. MOS:FLAG is a guideline.Tvx1 01:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Whilst i ackowledge that this is neither policy or guideline, its an essay.Blethering Scot 18:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep: I accept it could appropriately be renamed from "Flag policy" to "Flag guideline", which Tvx1 hinted would be a more accurate name. The page itself summarized the consensus reached at the WP Football forum, during multiple "Flag standard" debates conducted in the first half of 2011 (and back then it was accepted as such, with its creation being received by the WP Football forum as a good idea, as this special "flag guidelines" page had been build in a neutral way simply to reflect the outcome of the multiple repetitive consensus debates conducted at the WP Football talkpage for "flag use"). The WP Football forum needs to collect the result of its multiple "Flag policy" consensus debates conducted over time, as a point of navigation and steering point for multiple editors to check with as a starting point in case future "flag use" disputes erupt. Otherwise the arguments for our "Flag use" debates seems to repeat themselves endlessly, being restarted and repeated over and over again without learning anything from the previously conducted "consensus debates". The page is NOT an "editors essay", but instead a WP:Football consensus page intended to summarize the flag use guidelines (as a more detailed subset of flag use guidelines for the football related articles - being compliant with WP:MOSFLAG). As I have not contributed actively to WP Football in recent years, I am not able at present to report if some of the more recently conducted "flag use" consensus debates have changed the old "2011 consensus" at the WP Football forum. However, I insist its still relevant to keep this page. It should never be deleted, because as I argued, we clearly have a need for such football-related "flag guideline" page to be visible at the WP Football forum. As the "2011 page" was a first attempt, it might need, though, an update to reflect the outcome of the more recent "flag use" consensus debates conducted at the talkpages of "WP Foootball" and "Manual of Style/Icons" (i.e. the latest opened by Blethering Scot). But to spur such update work to be done (by some of the active WP Football members), deletion is not the appropriate tool to be used. Danish Expert (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Danish Expert: The issue is it isn't the project's flag guideline either. Its a good essay but unless you have full consensus of the project it should not be listed under a title of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy or guideline. We clearly do need to have a flag guideline as a project, but having looked through the archives of WP:Football rather extensively it appears virtually every time this is raised different views are given. Therefore we hardly have a consensus for more than a few months before its changed and in reality we are further away from a proper consensus than ever. This really needs to be renamed to either user space or some kind of draft until it is approved as a guideline or policy. Its not near that stage yet. I would love to help develop one for the project but it would have to respect MOS Flag rather than skirting it. Blethering Scot 18:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Reply: @Blethering Scot: The disputed page was the project's flag guideline being compromised among its active members in the first half of 2011. If you read through all flag debates on the project's talkpage and their outcome during the first half of 2011, you will find that the page you now complain about, provides a nice neutral summary of how the "flag debates" back then had been solved (as a collective effort of multiple members except from myself) - with note of what the winning argument had been. This page in no way represents my personal position/argumentation on this matter, but entirely reflects the outcome of the projects flag decisions made during the first half of 2011 (which I took care to compile, as one of the most active project members back then). Such flag decisions made collectively by the project on its talkpage, can of course subsequently always be challenged, and perhaps changed if the project reaches other decisions for a new set of "flag guidelines" to be implemented based on a new set of better arguments reaching consensus. Again, I invite you to see and understand the present Flag policy page as a starting point for compiling the projects "flag guidelines" decisions, which can be subject for further debate or change among the members of the project. If the project reaches consensus to implement a new set of completely different "flag guidelines", then the page can either be moved to become a historical subpage of the page (i.e. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy/2011 flag guidelines) or simply just be edited and updated (which is a far better approach than page deletion, because members then still can have access to visit the history folder to check how the "flag guidelines" evolved during the course of time). If you reach consensus for a new set of "flag guidelines" on the football projects talkpage, then I invite you to conduct either an update with such consensus of the page - and or moving it to become a historical subpage (as it was actually used by the football project as a reference point back in 2011). I can not support your request for page deletion. Unfortunately I have not time myself to rejoin the football project and/or help move the "football flag" debate further ahead, but I send you the best whish in your effort to attempt reaching consensus for a new improved set of "flag guidelines" applying for the football project, and if such consensus is reached, I strongly recommend the disputed "flag policy" page is updated to reflect this new consensus (in summary style) to become a new reference point for the project in the future. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 09:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - this is not policy of this WikiProject which has been determined by consensus and discussion - this is one editor's opinion on the matter, and this is nothing more than their personal essay. GiantSnowman 18:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Archive, do not delete. This was clearly created within the WikiProject, clearly within scope of the WikiProject, to contribute useful structure/policy. Sure, "policy" is the wrong word, but past ideas should not be deleted but learned from. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @SmokeyJoe: - no, this was NOT created by the WikiProject - it was clearly created by one editor and one editor only. It has never been adopted by the WikiProject, and in fact many of us were shocked to learn of its existence recently (I've been an active member of the WikiProject for nearly a decade BTW...) GiantSnowman 11:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Was the one editor not working for the WikiProject? Anyway, I believe that WikiProject's should be entitled to manage their own pages. If members of the WikiProject want it deleted, then it should be deleted. Or userfied for the author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • One editor's opinion is not "working for the WikiProject" - if he wants to userfy it, let him. But it should not remain as a WikiProject policy, live or archived. GiantSnowman 12:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @GiantSnowman: Reading your hostile replies here disappoints me in multiple ways! First of all, you of all should know and remember, that I was engaged as one of the active members to help improve WikiProject Football in 2011. Second the page is not the result of my own opinion, but do reflect how the WikiProject football talkpage had solved multiple flag debates during the first half of 2011. Third as I replied above to User:Blethering Scot, the page was intended to be a first attempt to write down the "flag guidelines" for the project (based on a careful read of the projects "flag use" decisions made in the first half of 2011 and a check of how it had been implement at football related articles), and not an attempt to enforce my own personal argumentation in this field. Fourth I have provided you and Blethering Scot full approval to blank the page and update it with a new consensus-agreed "flag guidelines" when you manage to reach such thing. Blethering Scot fully agreed with my observation and analysis, that the project would hugely benefit from the creation of a page featuring the projects updated "flag guidelines". The only point I asked for here, was not to delete the page itself (because as per Wikipedia's administration policy, its better to update content of pages rather than deleting them, so that its development history still is kept visible for those who desire to check it out and learn from it). In regards of the content of the disputed project page (which have existed for four years without complaints), you and other project members are of course more than welcome to update and replace all content with a new version of the projects "flag guidelines". However, a stupid page deletion would be a bad decision for the project. I insist that keeping the page (along with my full approval to replace all its content if you decide to do that) would hugely benefit the project, and therefor now plee for WikiProject Football (with you or others in charge) to decide keep having a page open to display the projects "flag guidelines" (in short summary style). Best regards, from a formerly hardworking active project member, Danish Expert (talk) 06:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If your essay truly reflects the consensus of the WikiProject in 2011 then please provide links to these discussions. GiantSnowman 09:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I am out of time now to help you further understanding the value of my page contribution, by posting a collection of the specific debate links the page has been build upon. As already mentioned, all the "flag debates" it has been build upon were conducted in the first half of 2011 at the main talkpage of WikiProject Football. As you know, its possible to revisit and read all those archived debates again if you like. I guarantee you, that I did not write the page as an essay. In regards of forum approval, its correct the page itself was not being put up for a broad consensus debate itself once it had been compiled (despite that I posted a link for its creation at the talkpage and asked for comments/opinions to be submitted to it if other members felt it needed some changes here or there). But the page nevertheless falls in the category of being a consensus page, as it accurately reflects the outcome of multiple "flag debates" conducted at the WikiProject Football talkpage. Then you are all free to agree/disagree with such outcome, and go change it by new consensus (or challenge it now). I insist however, that the page was straight from the beginning intended as a starting point for a process for the project to write down its own appropriate "flag guidelines". You should really take it for what it is, and stop bullying me down.
    Now I sincerely hope, that you and Blethering Scot will now subject it to some further development work. Because the project really needs to formulate its own specific "flag guidelines" as a subset of WP:MOSFLAG. Otherwise you will be caught-up in a new identical "flag dispute" being started and ended on the talkpage of the project every second week (with nobody learning from previous arguments and decisions being made). Blethering Scot has reported, that he fully agrees with me that it is a problem the Project does not work and refer to a consensus accepted set of "flag guidelines", because he found out that many of the latest conducted "flag use" debates had not been solved consistently in the exact same way by the project (depending on who of the active members had time to engage themselves in such debates at the various times they were conducted). If I should give you and Blethering Scot a friendly advice, it would be now to go through the same exercise I did back in June 2011: To extract the outcome of the most recently conducted "flag use" debates at the projects talkpage, and then update the "flag policy" page to reflect this (including what the winning arguments were). On basis of this, proposals can be made step by step during the course of time for the purpose of perfecting the flag guidelines further (based on the outcome of "flag use" debates conducted at the talkpage of the project). The current content of the page (created in June 2011) was in any case only understood to be a starting point. Perhaps you can reuse some small parts of the extracted arguments and logic being utilized back in 2011. If that is the case, then good. If not, then I wont force you to keep any of it. My constructive proposal here is, that you should not delete the page, but do whatever changes you find appropriate to its content (including blanking it all, if the project ends up to decide nothing of its content or presentation of logical arguments can be used). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, I think. I remember Danish Expert leading discussions of various aspects of football articles, including flags, professional leagues/notability, the organisation of the project itself, and I took part in them occasionally. What I don't remember is any agreement at the time that the results as written up by Danish Expert were any form of project policy. That editor may have seen them at the time as representing project consensus, but I don't remember, and can't find now, any indication that anyone else did. Having just read their reply timed at 11:56 above, it appears they saw this page as a starting point: that seems closer to my recollection. There's a difference between what gets done in articles under the project's remit, and what ought to be done if it wants to bring "its" articles closer to compliance with the Wikipedia MoS. Consequently, I don't really see much point in keeping it as historical record of the project's views on the matter, but would have no objection to its being userfied if anyone thinks it ccould be useful. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Archive and/or rename and/or put a prominent disclaimer at the top If the page is not renamed, it should have a prominent disclaimer at the top saying it is not a policy and never was one. If this is to be deleted I would expect a strong consensus from people involved in that WikiProject to recommend deletion. I'm not seeing any such support so I won't support deletion either (yet). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment . It doesn't need strong consensus as there was never any consensus for its creation in the first place. So far four project members have commented. Three have said should be deleted and only one the creator has said should be kept. This must not be kept as a project page as it wrongly gives the impression the project endorse it or previously endorsed it. The only way this should be kept is if Danish Expert wishes it to be userfied to his space.Blethering Scot 18:04, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed, this should not be archived - archiving it implies this is an old policy which is no longer in use, while in actual terms it was never a WikiProject Football policy. I don't know how many times we have to say that until people start listening... GiantSnowman 11:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

July 12, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV[edit]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This was a draft version of the page Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2008 and hence is an unfinished duplicate and can be deleted. Liz Read! Talk! 19:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Given that the page has five subpages, would it be better to keep it as a hub of sorts linking to those pages? Bosstopher (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Liz: Pinging for a response, now that this has been relisted. Is anyone allowed to edit Signpost pages? If so I'd be willing to try and fix it up into a link hub or something. Brustopher (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Brustopher: This page is identical to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2008. This is the style for the listing of single-page view issues of the Signpost from 2005-2009 (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2005, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2006, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2007, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2009). After 2009, the template and format changed to the single page view that the Signpost currently uses (see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-01-04 for example) and there are currently no year indexes after 2009 (at least not yet!).
All of the pages that link to this page are coming from user pages, this MfD discussion and this archived talk page Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Archive1#Single-Page View Archives not updated for six months. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV is not a general template used on other pages. Looking at the page history, this page was created in 2007, was started as the 2008 index of single page issues by User:Seattle Skier who later created Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Archives/SPV/2008 which is actually the proper index page for the 2008 year. Liz Read! Talk! 13:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: To clarify I'm not in support of keeping it in something like its current form, but instead that it be replaced by a simple list of all its subpages. It could increase ease of navigation, as well as avoiding the issue of a page that doesn't exist having 5 subpages. Brustopher (talk) 14:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

July 14, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-02-11[edit]

Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-02-11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-02-11 which is the correctly titled page. Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep even if this is the wrong name, it seems to be the one that is linked from everywhere. The other that you says is the correct title, is almost unlinked and so should get the chop. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question How about simply redirecting this page to the correct one? Or would that mess up transclusions? --Pine 22:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Pine, a redirect would work. There are a couple other pages with this titling for early 2015 and you have commented on another MFD for one.
As there are hundreds of single page issues of the Signpost that have either the format of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/Date (for 2010-2015) or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Date/SPV (for 2005-2009), I would strongly discourage eliminating a page in either of those titling formats over Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/Date. It is ridiculous that the Wikipedia is repeated (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost) but I have now categorized thousands of these pages and I would hope that there would be consistency here. Thanks for the suggestion Pine. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support replacing page with redirect per above. --Pine 00:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

July 8, 2015[edit]

User:Sukuk51[edit]

User:Sukuk51 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
21:53, 9 July 2015 RHaworth (talk · contribs) moved page User:Sukuk51 to User:Sukuk51/sandbox without leaving a redirect.

Userpage is masquerading as an article Brianhe (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • There may be some other issues with the editor, but it is short, it covers what is of interest to the editor and what they are working on. It isn't "an article" any more than my "my philosophy" section on my user page is. Simply put, I think deleting this short piece of self-identification would be overkill and not in line with consensus policy. Dennis Brown - 23:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, when I opened the MfD the userpage looked like this. Brianhe (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This conversation might be more fit for ANI. The user initially redirected his userpage and talk page to Islamophobia; Jytdog and I removed the redirects because they're disruptive, a user's main page and talk shouldn't redirect to an irrelevant page (though I haven't seen this mentioned in our policies, but maybe it should be mentioned). So now the editor just copied parts of the Islamophobia article to his userpage and talk page. I don't know what to say about that. I think an admin should just give him a proper warning, say that he doesn't own his talk page and people should be able to leave him messages when necessary, and those messages shouldn't be obstructed by something that looks like an article draft. But there's a chance that if we leave this guy alone then he might just go away. He was here to advertise his websites and that didn't go well, he might not have anything left to do here. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 07:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Note that the userpage was not tagged, and the user was not notified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I just notified him. [3] --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually yes [4] Brianhe (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. I see now, User:Sukuk51 removed the mfd notice and the notifications. Appropriately, User:Sukuk51 has already been blocked for disruptive editing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Driverc/Draft of article[edit]

User:Driverc/Draft of article (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an older promotional version of James Fanstone. Besides not being written in an encyclopedic tone, it's redundant. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • History merge the first three versions with James Fanstone to correct the copy-paste mistake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no need to history merge because the mainspace article has been created by the same user as the draft, and no one else contributed any content, so there is no attribution issue. Apparently in situations like that the consensus is to delete the fragment. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia says "If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary." When I was a new editor I tagged some pages like this for history merging and had my hand slapped.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The history merge is overkill, just like the request for deletion. Why not just redirect, producing a nearly identical situation has the page been moved, not copy-pasted?
Yes, in mainspace, a fragment left behind by a copy-paste, where there is no attribution issue, should be simply deleted (citing G6). However, userspace is not mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Appsolutely everything/GetJar[edit]

User:Appsolutely everything/GetJar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Article was created at GetJar but a history merge isn't needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think that? This final version at this page was done almost two weeks before this version (excluding the redirect creation) and included none of the links. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
The userspace page existed first, and includes text so similar to the later mainspace creation that it is sufficient to call the mainspace creation a copyright violation. Either the mainspace creation was a copyright violation, or both were copyright violations. Including User:Appsolutely everything in the author list is the safest course of action. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Report from the underworld - There's some deleted history here.
  1. On October 14 2009, the mainspace article was originally created, but was deleted the same day as a copyvio.
  2. On October 26, the page was recreated by Egil, but with no independent references. Several editors worked on it.
  3. On November 5, Appsolutely everything made a substantial change to the text, including some of what's in the draft above, as well as a whole whack of promotional detail, and removed "citation needed" tags added by another user, using the edit summary "tag excessive whitespace".
  4. This resulted in the article being deleted the next day as too promotional, and the title was create-protected.
  5. December 14, Appsolutely everything created the draft with some of the same content that led to the deletion.
  6. In January, the title was unprotected, and Mathiastck copied the same text, recreating the article, which continued to have problems with promotional content and lack of references.
In summary, although Appsolutely everything did write the text in the draft, he/she did not create the article, and in fact, caused the article to be deleted by adding that text. If his/her edit had just been reverted back then, the article would be properly attributed to Egil. I'm not sure what should be done to fix this.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • . Hmmm. Broadly speaking, I don't find this so unusual, even finding it reminiscent of real world stories of involvement and authorship. Same as there, I say, give him authorship, even if he doesn't deserve it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm here on request at WT:CP. I've used the technique we used to use back in the days before revision deletion, rather than restoring the history and merging from the userspace draft, by adding a list of contributors to the talk page of the current article. It's more complete than it legally needs to be, as the list can be filtered to exclude minimal contributions and certainly people who added deletion tags, etc., contributed no creative content, but I just put the whole list there. That satisfies copyright according to our wmf:Terms of Use which now and in 2009 required agreement that a list of authors satisfied attribution. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Moonriddengirl. Now that the copyright issue is resolved, it seems the draft doesn't legally have to be merged; however, it still makes a difference as to who is notified in case the mainspace article is tagged or under discussion at a later date. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure I'd worry too much about that, Anne Delong. Any tags or discussions will be flagged on the face of the article, and we have quite a few articles where we have no good way to reach the originators, such as IP created articles from our early days or through the current draft system. :) Content that is split from other articles is also not easily linked to the originator of the text, since the attribution may consist only of a link to another article in the edit summary. Oh, and all those articles we used to delete and attribute that way before revision deletion had exactly the same issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations[edit]

User:Cdogsimmons/Canada–Tonga relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

as per WP:STALEDRAFT, deleted article that user asked to be retained on his userspace but has not worked on it for over 4 years LibStar (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

they could be. I forgot to complete the process when I started nominating this yesterday with the other one. LibStar (talk) 02:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Same comment as below (respectively). Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

July 7, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11[edit]

Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-03-11 is a duplicate of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2015-03-11 and the latter is the correct title of the page. I'm seeking for the article with the wrong title to be deleted. And, yes, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost is a redundant format for a page title but it's been the titling format for 10 years that the Signpost has been published. Liz Read! Talk! 10:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Pine, I provided a fuller reply on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Signpost/Single/2015-02-11 but, yes, a redirect would work. I think there are three mistitled pages along with several other pages with a version of this titling format which are redirects to the actual single page issues. You have provided the most sensible solution! Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support replacing page with redirect per above. --Pine 00:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations[edit]

User:Cdogsimmons/Romania – Sri Lanka relations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

as per WP:STALEDRAFT, deleted article that user asked to be retained on his userspace but has not worked on it for over 4 years. LibStar (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep or at worst Redirect to Foreign_relations_of_Sri_Lanka#Romania. There is material here worth considering adding to mainspace. There is nothing inappropriate requiring deletion or even blanking. True, it should remain live, but it is find in the history behind the redirect. AlthoughEven if the user is were long inactive, there are no time limits, and it is rude to dispose of someones work while they are away. With the redirect, the user may pick this up again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
read WP:STALEDRAFT. LibStar (talk) 01:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I know it very well. It is not a reason for deletion. Further, or rather firstly, there are good reasons to not delete this. If you could point to a deletion discussion concerning this content, that would be more interesting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll let the community decide what's best to do with this. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

All right. All right. Every now and then I come out of semi-retirement to see that not much has changed on the bi-lateral relations fiasco. I would hope that if the page I had drafted cannot be restored to be a stand alone page by consensus, the information could at least be merged with Foreign relations of Romania or Foreign relations of Sri Lanka. If none-of-the-above, I would respectfully request you leave my page alone for another year while I contemplate my return to this metaphorical meat-grinder. Thanks. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
another year? Seriously. Please read WP:STALEDRAFT. it appears you have zero intention of working of this with "another year". LibStar (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, read the section linked by WP:STALEDRAFT. Where does it say that you need to delete other people's userpages due to them being old? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

responses like another year give the impression of wanting to indefinitely host. As per staledraft Short-term hosting of potentially valid articles and other reasonable content under development or in active use is usually acceptable . There is no active editing of this draft nor serious intent of turning into an article. Even cdog needs "another year" just to think about it. 4-5 years is not a short term host by any measure LibStar (talk) 23:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I just noticed the "deleted article that user asked to be retained" in the nomination. Was that there at the start. Next time please link the deletion discussion. I found it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romania – Sri Lanka relations. Delete as a copy of deleted materials. Please stop using "STALEDRAFT" for copies of deleted content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
the third line specifically refers to deleted content. LibStar (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

My original wording has not changed, and I stand by my nomination of deleted content in userspace with no serious intent of becoming an article. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I need to make more care to read the nomination more fully. My apologies. Deleted content cannot be hosted in userspace indefinitely being "improved" with no serious attempt to overcome the reasons for deletion noted at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
apology accepted. I appreciate your honesty. LibStar (talk) 09:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 5, 2015[edit]

Template:UBX multilingualism[edit]

Template:UBX multilingualism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Redundant to {{User multilingual}}. Alakzi (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Keep There are like 20 different userboxes someone can use to denote if their gender is male or female, no harm in a little variety with multilingualism userboxes. Bosstopher (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Especially when the text is illegible and categorisation is broken, and nobody actually uses the userbox. You'll also note that those other userboxes don't reside in the Template namespace. Alakzi (talk) 16:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Userfy then. The text is no longer illegible and I fixed the categorisation. I'd be willing to move it into my userspace and use it if kept. Bosstopher (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redundant, not needed in Template space. Binksternet (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Userfy on request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

July 3, 2015[edit]

Talk:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center/GA1[edit]

Talk:Colegio de la Preciosa Sangre de Pichilemu Students' Center/GA1 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This page should either be deleted under G8 or it should be tagged as G8-exempt. I'm asking my fellow Wikipedians to look at the content and incoming links and discuss it. I'm leaning towards a "weak delete" but would favor tagging it as "g8-exempt" rather than doing nothing. As it is, it is occupying space in Wikipedia:Database reports/Orphaned talk subpages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment/disclaimer: I recently added text to WP:CSD#G8. See WT:CSD#Bold G8 clarification regarding article talk page archives. The previous content of CSD:G8 is here (diff). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. A GA review archive should not be deleted, but recorded as part of the GA processes, but this was not a GA reveiw, instead the reviewer nominated the article for deletion, and it was deleted. So, there was no review, this page is a mere extension of an ordinary artilce talk page. i see nothing interesting in the incoming links.
Should anyone of good standing have any interest in the page for any reason, they should be able to have it userfied, or placed in some appropriate Wikipedia place. I see no reason why anyone would be interested in this non-review review page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent either way. I don't see the point in usifying it other than removing it from some list. If there is a way to attach it to the deletion log (to which it's related), that may best. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
(I was one of the contributors to the review). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Adrienne Armstrong/Comments[edit]

Talk:Adrienne Armstrong/Comments (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Complex request: Temporarily undelete all revisions of the parent page,Talk:Adrienne Armstrong, merge the pre-05:09, 8 April 2014 content with the current content (which is just an AFD notice), add a comment to the talk page's header linking to Talk:Adrienne Armstrong/Comments, revert to the 22:40, 9 June 2014‎ revision, and delete all other versions. The reason this is not being requested as a Speedy is that if the page Adrienne Armstrong is ever un-deleted, the old talk page contents, the current talk-page contents, and this talk sub-page will all be potentially useful to the project. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

  • No objection to someone doing as David asks, but this page should be deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrienne Armstrong, and the deletion should be considered permanent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    As a point of information, someone created a new stub/test article Adrienne Armstrong. Another editor tagged it for speedy-deletion but immediately changed his mind and turned the page into a redirect. A few minutes later a bot came along and created the talk page as it now exists. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
    I don't see why this is is important. Given random re-creations, I support protection of the redirect, permanently until a consensus to recreate is demonstrated at the talk page of the redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2, 2015[edit]

User:BDime89[edit]

User:BDime89 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Seems to be a copy-and-paste move. There was an AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ginny Weasley (character) (kept?) and nevertheless made into a redirect. This was just copied. Following a number of moves, the history is finally at Ginny Weasley. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

July 1, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations)[edit]

Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relations) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

this "draft guideline" was created by a user to conveniently and not so coincidentally support his argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patricia Eugenia Cárdenas Santa María (2nd nomination) the claim in this guideline that all bilateral relations, ambassadors and embassies are automatically notable carries no weight and does not reflect community consensus. There have been been several hundred in total of all of these deleted, so community consensus is clear there is no inherent notability. there was a lengthy discussion a few months ago to give ambassadors inherent notability at WP:BIO but this did not eventuate. creating draft guidelines not based on strong community consensus and to back your own argument in an AfD at the same time is not advisable. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:LibStar: (1) That AfD is over, so the use of this proposal in that AfD is irrelevant. (2) The purpose of this proposal is to seek consensus for a guideline. (3) I can't remember if I looked at that AfD before or after I created the guideline. The primary motivation was discussions on the talk page of BIO, the text of DIPLOMAT, discussions about the notability of bilateral treaties and non binding agreements, and the earlier "bilateral relationships" rejected proposal (which I felt was too much of a mess to expand) and my own views. Since I cited the draft in that AfD, I probably did not see the AfD until after the proposal was created. You'll have to forgive me if my memory has failed on this occasion, but I am not getting any younger, and I am coming under a lot of pressure here. I certainly did not create it for the purpose of that AfD. In fact, my argument in that AfD consisted entirely of certain words in the introduction to BIO ("significant, interesting or unusual enough to deserve attention"). I didn't cite the proposal as an argument at all. I have had this in mind for a many months, and would have created it anyway. I have repeatedly said that I think we should have SNGs for all fields, because GNG is subjective and vulnerable to systematic bias in our sources. (4) Draft proposals do not have to be based on strong community consensus. James500 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete There is some discussion going on at the project page and hopefully others will join in. I do not see a policy based reason to delete. At this time I am undecided on whether <Userfy or Keep is more appropriate so this should not be read as a Keep !vote. This page was created by a single user seemingly to support their !vote in a deletion discussion. There has been no editing of the page or discussion with other editors about these supposed, proposed guidelines and, as stated, they run counter to current consensus at AfD on the topics addressed. While a guideline on this topic may be of use it should be proposed on the Notability talk page where discussion among several editors can take place not by creating a guideline and trying to use it to bolster an AfD position. JbhTalk 03:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Updated !vote based on WP:PROPOSAL JbhTalk 21:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
    Reinstated DELETE !vote above per WP:IAR if this is brought up for RfC now it will essentially poison the well for any near or intermediate term progress on the topic. No one seems to want to help actually write the proposal and James500's desire to call a 'snap RfC' on the proposal as it was initially written will not garner anything other than a rehash of the arguments on this page.

    Please note the version James500 wants a 'snap RfC' on [5] says only, all Ambassadors, Embassies and bilateral relations are notable. There are a few more words to the actual draft but not many. That proposal has zero chance of passing and really is not a proposal at all. JbhTalk 19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • It is a proposal no matter how ill considered you may think it. James500 (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - while I fully intend to support a well-written essay or guideline in the future about the notability of ambassadors or SOME bilateral relations, this draft is NOT appropriate to be mentioned in an AfD and most alarming it is NOT in draft space!!! As said above, a guideline should be proposed and discussed among multiple editors, not spontaneously created for one AfD. The editor created it purely to support his position (since he had nothing else to use to support it) and then claimed we WP:IAR about it just being a draft, and possibly fool less experienced AfD commentators, and I almost feel this should be brought up at WP:ANI. МандичкаYO 😜 14:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Wikimandia: That is untrue from start from finish. WP:PROPOSAL does not require that a draft proposal be created in the draftspace (which is for draft articles) nor that it be discussed by multiple editors. I did not create the proposal for that AfD. Also, my main argument in that AfD was WP:GNG, not IAR. I invoked it so prominently that I cannot believe you read my comments with anything remotely approaching the level of care required. And these kind of accusations are supposed to be supported by diffs. I hope you will apologise for misrepresenting what I said. James500 (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The reason why I pointed out it belonged in draftspace was because I assumed it was far from finished. It is so short and so brief and consists of sections such as "Places" ("An embassy is notable.") and "Treaties" ("A bilateral treaty is notable.") Second, the issue here is not that you also claim this article meets GNG. The issue is your introduction of this draft into the AfD discussion. Here are your exact words how you introduced this proposal into the AfD: "The bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are per se notable (WP:NBILATERAL, WP:IAR (mentioning this policy since someone will probably argue that the preceding page is a draft)" [6] I am not apologizing as I did not misrepresent anything. МандичкаYO 😜 15:18, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Wikimandia: Your words "since he had nothing else to use to support it", refering to my "position", above necessarily implied that I had not invoked GNG (or anything else) as an argument, and that I had no sources. So it was misrepresentation. You are still quote mining, as my next words were "WP:N (lead section says a topic is notable if it "worthy of notice" in the ordinary meaning of those words), cf. "significant [or] interesting ... enough to deserve attention" in lead section of WP:BIO, which I suggest is intended as a principle of general application)" and I had previously said "satisfies GNG", invoking Nomian's news sources. And I didn't suggest we IAR about it being a draft, the rule that I was suggesting we ignore, with respect to possibility of inherent notability, but not with respect to the sources available, was GNG itself. Because there is no rule against invoking draft proposals for us to ignore. It is marked as draft not because it is far from finished, but because, having created something as narrow as I thought possible, I wanted see if there was any support for the notability of other diplomats, consulates, and non binding agreements. I have actually heard suggestions that "soft law" non binding agreements in force, and all heads of mission, whether they are ambassadors or not, should be notable. So there are editors even more inclusionist than me. James500 (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC) If you are really concerned about it being marked as a draft proposal, I can mark it as an actual proposal. I see nothing wrong with guidelines being short and simple. In fact, I consider that preferable. James500 (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You tend to claim everything meets GNG and Nomian's claim do not support GNG. If they did, there would no need to bring up this draft at all. You're picking apart my comment to claim you were misrepresented - the problem is you bringing this up at all in TWO AfDs. That was your own behavior and cannot be misrepresented. МандичкаYO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Wikimandia: (1) I do claim everything meets GNG. I do not !vote against many AfDs, and I leave many PRODs untouched, because I agree with them. I have also tagged several hundred articles for speedy deletion. I could not be called an inclusionist. (2) Since Nomian's sources do support GNG, there was no need to bring up this proposal. But that is irrelevant. There is no rule against advancing redundant arguments, nor would one serve any purpose. Why shouldn't I advance redundant arguments? If, for example, a person satisfies both GNG and PROF, why shouldn't I mention both? (3) As for "the problem is you bringing this up at all in TWO AfDs", that isn't what you said above. There is no rule against citing proposals at AfD, and the number of contributors to them is irrelevant. (4) My behaviour is irrelevant to whether this proposal should be deleted. If you don't like my citation of this proposal in the AfD, the solution is to ask me to strike or redact it. To nominate it for deletion simply with the object of influencing the outcome of the AfD, instead of its merits (and I think it is a fantastic proposal), is certainly POINT. James500 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I just noticed what you said earlier. How is this not a lie? "And I didn't suggest we IAR about it being a draft, the rule that I was suggesting we ignore, with respect to possibility of inherent notability, but not with respect to the sources available, was GNG itself." You DID use IAR about it being a draft. That is exactly why you put in IAR. You words: "The bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are per se notable (WP:NBILATERAL, WP:IAR (mentioning this policy since someone will probably argue that the preceding page is a draft)" If you are claiming you cited IAR about GNG that makes no sense, since you claimed this article met GNG, so why would you advise that there were any rules to ignore in the first place? МандичкаYO 😜 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I have already explained why this line of reasoning is erroneous at the AfD. James500 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Indeed.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Snowball keep No valid rationale for deletion. The draft proposal was not created for the purpose of the Azerbijan-Bangladesh AfD, as I have explained there. It was created after a previous AfD, and various other discussions I've participated in on various talk pages, such as the talk pages of BIO, and another failed proposal, and the diplomatic notability essay. I should point out that attributing ulterior motives for which there is no evidence to other editors is not appropriate. The sole purpose of this draft proposal is to propose a new guideline. If this draft proposal does not reflect consensus, it should either be edited to reflect present or emerging consensus or marked as rejected. It does not get deleted. That is not allowed. IIRC, it is explicitly forbidden to use MfD for that purpose. In any event, proposals do not have to reflect existing consensus as they are supposed to be attempts to form a new consensus. That is why their template says that they have not reached the stage of gathering consensus. Draft proposals do not have to be discussed on the talk pages of any existing guideline before their creation. And they are not "draft guidelines" as described above. We do not delete draft proposals for the reasons that are being advanced here. I am also deeply concerned that the nominator did not notify me of this nomination. James500 (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
inappropriate snowball keep. Snow ball is when there is unanimous consensus, in fact everyone above you opposes your view, you simply love twisting the rules. It's laughable that you think this is snow ball. LibStar (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:LibStar: No, consensus is not a vote. "Snowball keep" is when there are no valid arguments for deletion, and no prospect of any being advanced. The bottom line is that we don't delete proposals we don't like. We mark them as rejected. That's what we do. So this nomination is out of process. James500 (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

do you take me as a fool? This is not a snow ball. Snowflakes chance in hell, this is a snow keep but reply with some convoluted response. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he knows what WP:SNOW means. Honestly I'm beginning to feel this is a WP:CIR issue we're dealing with. МандичкаYO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Wikimandia: "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." A nomination based entirely on, and supported only by, invalid arguments, with no prospect of any valid arguments for deletion being made, has no chance of being accepted, if the closing admin knows what he is doing. They are supposed to ignore !votes that contain no valid arguments. And I don't see any valid arguments for deletion. And I suspect that I may have a better understanding of NOTBURO than you. James500 (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
find me one admin that would be willing to close this as snow keep. But wait I hear a long winded excuse ridden deflecting response being written. LibStar (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
User:LibStar: I can't ask individual admins to come and close this. That would be canvassing. James500 (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

yep, another excuse and denial that snow doesn't apply here. LibStar (talk) 22:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Are you saying that you want me to start canvassing possible closers? I cannot do that. If you want a precedent, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Notability (sports) was unanimously closed as speedy keep. Every single participant !voted for that result. I can't find a single instance of a notability proposal being deleted at MfD, despite many attempts, so I think we can infer that there is no prospect of that ever happening. James500 (talk) 12:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
the fact you still can't realise this does not qualify for snow keep shows a real lack of competency. But you'll reply again with some long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - It should also be pointed out that James500 brought it up at another AfD and stated it should be followed as it's a "correct" interpretation of guideline: "We should, therefore, follow the draft notability criteria of WP:NBILATERAL, which are a correct exposition of that basic idea." [7]. МандичкаYO 😜 16:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Wikimandia: There is nothing wrong with me saying 'I think the correct interpretation of BIO is X'. And how proposals and essays are cited at AfD has nothing to do with their merits and therefore has no relevance to whether they should be deleted. If it did, we would have to delete WP:MILL right now. James500 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You didn't say "I think/feel it's the correct interpretation," did you? You said your draft SHOULD be followed because it IS the correct interpretation. МандичкаYO 😜 18:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any real difference. James500 (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If you really don't understand the difference between stating "I think the correct interpretation of BIO is X" and "it must be followed because it is correct" then I think sadly you do not have the competence required to contribute to discussions on Wikipedia. (And I'm saying that's what I think, not that it is fact, because I understand the difference.) МандичкаYO 😜 03:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) Your argument seems to be extreme hair splitting. Comments at AfD do not need to be written with the semantic precision of a mathematical formula. There is no meaningful difference in ordinary speech between "we should do X", "X is the correct thing to do", "I think we should do X" and "I think X is the correct thing to do" and so forth. The words "should" and "must" do not necessarily mean the same thing either. I don't think that anyone would fail to understand what I said unless they had a very weak grasp of the English language. (2) I am far more competent than you. James500 (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have edited the proposal to express my understanding of the current consensus notability of bilateral relations. And removed the ultra-contentious topic of Ambassadors. I also removed the section on Embassies and made it clear the proposal had no current consensus to be used in discussions of notability. JbhTalk 18:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@User:Jbhunley: Thank you for your edits to the proposal. They don't really reflect my opinions, but they may in some respects be an improvement on GNG. Would you now agree that the arguments above for the deletion of this proposal no longer apply to it in its current form? Would you now agree that the draft proposal should be kept and improved? James500 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on my reading of WP:PROPOSAL it is not really a proposal until it is placed in RfC. As it stands I do think it should be worked on quite a bit in user space or draft space to bring it up to a quality level that has a chance of passing RfC. I posted a link at WikiProject: International Relations to try to get more editors to show up here and/or there. If more people start editing/commenting on it I will strike my delete !vote. Right now I admit that there seems to be no policy to delete but as it stands I do not think it should be kept because it pretty much rewords just rewords GNG.

My concern is in how you used it and how others might use it in deletion discussions to imply some form of consensus to readers who do not click through to the actual page where it says Thus references or links to this page should not describe it as "policy" nor yet even as a proposal.(Emp. mine). I admit that is not a good basis for deletion so I am stating it so the closer can take it into account.

I would be willing to work on crafting a notability policy on bilateral relations either on the page, if it is kept, or in user space. Whichever there need to be a lot more editors commenting on it before I would be comfortable seeing it cited at AfD. JbhTalk 18:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

@User:Jbhunley: It does add to GNG. You've removed "independent" (which is reasonable because it would be ludicrous to require all the sources to be independent of two whole countries) and "secondary" (which is ambiguous, confusing, open to extensive objections for certain types of sources at least, and has never been taken particularly seriously, being used a code word for "good source" by the vast majority of our editors who still have no idea what it means). "And only if" will have to be removed because an SNG that says GNG can't be used as an argument for keeping an article has little chance of achieving consensus. "It might be cited at AfD" is an argument that would require the deletion of all notability essays. There is no question of imposing restrictions on what can be cited at AfD. James500 (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
@James500: How about copying this thread over to the article talk page? As to your comments I actually did not really consider those points when I did the changes, although I should have. If I had I would probably have used 'independent, third party reliable source'. By this I would mean to exclude 'press release' type announcements, from embassies, government press officers and the like. I would also consider trivial mentions of normal diplomatic functions to not contribute to notability. JbhTalk 21:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
"Independent, third party" could be problematic. Some people might argue that a bilateral treaty wasn't an independent source, yet even you agree that treaties contribute to notability, and excluding it would be undesirable. Some people might argue that a source is not independent unless it was foreign. And that would also be ludicrous. I would not approve of automatically excluding sources like command papers either. This also exposes one of the weak points of GNG. If what we want to do is ensure we can write an article of reasonable length, we do need a sufficient amount of information in reliable sources, but we don't need them to be independent. And if we want to ensure that our topic has been noticed by the wider world, we do need an independent source, but there does not seem to be any reason why its coverage should be lengthy, particularly as some 'general' sources aim to be concise. James500 (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Assuming Jbhunley (talk · contribs) and James500 (talk · contribs) are independent editors, this page is now a multi-authored draft headed towards being {{Proposed}}. We don't delete Wikipedia history. This draft's future is to be a policy/guideline page, or to be tagged {{failed}}. Even if it were just a foolish single author idea, it still should not be deleted, but userfied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Please note that Jbhunley has changed their vote to delete. Keφr 09:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Noted. The single author, James500, writes nonsense, and Jbhunley was only involved in trying to correct he nonsense, and does not wish to be recorded as a co-author of it. James500's new sub-notability draft proposal pages should be deleted from projectspace. They are acceptable in his userspace as disputed single author opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
        • @User:SmokeyJoe: In all fairness, the proposals are not "nonsense" by any reasonable standard. Even if they are a truly stupid terrible idea, that doesn't make them "nonsense". That isn't what that word means. The other two are actually copied, or based, on existing guidelines (AUTHOR and OBK). James500 (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
        • @User:SmokeyJoe: I should also point out that they are not single author opinion, as users other than myself have expressed support for each of these propositions on other pages. Would you like a list of names and diffs? I'll be happy to supply it. James500 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
        • In fact, I'll give you some diffs anyway. Here is User:Necrothesp saying that all ambassadors, at least from and to major countries, are notable. (Okay, there is a slight difference, but it could easily be added to the proposal, and I take the words "at least" to mean "really I think their probably all notable"). Embassies has to follow from that. The essay WP:DIPLOMAT, which I did not write, also concurs with the proposal, and is even more inclusive (an ambassador will always be a head of mission). Here is User:Mendaliv saying that all bilateral treaties (and non binding agreements) in force satisfy GNG, meaning they are notable. (Okay, "in force" is a slight difference, but those words could easily be added, and I don't think it matters). Here, if I read him correctly, is User:RekishiEJ saying that the bilateral relations of two countries that have such relations are notable. (Option 1, which he endorses, reads "All articles describing bilateral relationships (Country A-Country B) are inherently notable.") That is squarely in support of what I proposed. So that is two people (roughly) in support of each proposition, not a single person. I'm sure that if I dig through the archives of AfD, I'll find many more. If your only reason for arguing for userfication is that I am the sole person who supports the terms of the proposal, please reconsider your !vote, because that simply does not appear to be true (short of extreme nit picking that could be addressed by minor amendments). James500 (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Nonsense. The second diff says that treaties in force satisfy current criteria of notability, which implies that having them declared notable by fiat, in a policy/guideline/whatever like this is superfluous. The third diff similarly says that current policies handle "foreign relations" topics sufficiently well and no further rules are necessary. I can grant that the first diff agrees with you, but one other agreeing person is hardly impressive. Keφr 16:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
          • Actually one of the accepted purposes of SNGs is to identify those topics that generally satisfy GNG, in order to avoid wasting time on doing a BEFORE that can only have one outcome, so I think Mendaliv is broadly on my side. What RekishiEJ says is that he supports Option 1 described above and that he thinks that each bilateral relationship is notable if it satisfies V, NOR and NPOV, and 'the "foreign relations of XXX" is sound enough' (which presumably means that each country has its foreign relations properly described in its own article or a standalone article). He is not saying the bilateral relations have to satisfy GNG, or anything like that. Anyway, identifying one editor who supports me is enough to answer SmokeyJoe's rationale. James500 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. While possibly gamesmanship, it's still valid as a proposal (and an actual guideline seems like it could be useful to have eventually). If the results at AFD continue in the same line, it'll be tagged as failed but otherwise it's still a proposal. My suggestion is to start another proposal that you think actually reflects consensus and then see if that proposal can be elevated and this article should be userified then. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment @Ricky81682 and SmokeyJoe: I pretty much re-wrote the page to say the opposite of what it said initially. There does not seem to be any interest from others in expanding it. I do not know what the process for proposals/draft proposals is, I got involved with it because it was a new, single author 'guideline' that did not reflect consensus as I, or the other editors at that AfD, understand it. If MfD is not the proper forum then should it be put up for RfC to get more input and pass/fail it? I posted a notice at Wikiproject: International Relations that discussion was going on here and at the project page since notice was not posted when the draft was created. I do not know where to go from here. JbhTalk 12:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Life_cycle. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in expanding it. James500 (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Jbh, as you have contributed usefully, and the idea is reasonable, unless you are very clear that you want this deleted or removed from Wikipedia space, I think that it has to stay as a valid proposal. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
My first choice would be to delete it if there is some valid way to do so. I do not believe such a guideline can pass and GNG has worked pretty well in the topic area. I struck my delete !vote above only because I did not see a policy based way to delete it. At some point an NBILATERAL might be of use but without several more people working on it this proposed proposal has zero chance of passing. I would prefer to avoid taking a proposal I do not feel strongly about through RfC simply to mark it {{failed}} but just leaving it in limbo seems wrong too. If there is some proper way to delete it I say delete it. JbhTalk 13:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I think we can mark a proposal as failed without an RfC. We normally mark a proposal as failed to let editors know that the idea has been tried before. If this was deleted, someone else would create something very similar sooner or later. We would have an endless cycle of deletions and re-creations. Another possibility would be merger/redirection to Wikipedia:Notability (bilateral relationships), though we normally don't do that for proposals that differ significantly. I wouldn't worry about the number of people presently participating when considering deletion. If we leave this up, other people who are a more balanced and representative sample of the community will show up eventually, even if it takes a long time. James500 (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete- The previous version was contrary to policy and communty practice. It was extreme inclusionist "everything is notable" bilge, and was used deceptively at AfD. There's precedent for deleting miscellany if its purpose is to game the system. The current version is closer to rationality, but its author doesn't want it around. So I really don't see a compelling reason to keep it. Reyk YO! 13:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
excellent points Reyk . Watch as James500 comes back with a long winded excuse ridden response. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Reyk: You know perfectly well that was not the purpose of the thing. I could just as easily accuse you of gaming the system by !voting to delete the page because you are frightened that, given time, it might achieve consensus and become a guideline, and because it conflicts with your own extreme deletionist personal opinions about deletion. The "extreme inclusionist everything is notable bilge" comment could be construed that way. But we are supposed to assume good faith. And I would be grateful if you would afford me the same courtesy. "Contrary to policy" is not a valid argument because the purpose of proposals is to change policy. Contrary to community practice is not a valid argument because the purpose of proposals is to propose new practices. The RfC of the proposal process can create consensus for both. It was not used deceptively (I clearly stated it was a draft in express words, therefore claiming it was used deceptively is itself deceptive) and, in any event, that argument would require the deletion of all essays and proposals. The proposal did not say that everything is notable. Nor was it even close to that. It excluded many diplomats, all consulates and other buildings that are not embassies, and all non binding agreements. There are editors (not myself) who support the notability of all these things. There probably is an emerging consensus for the notability of ambassadors and embassies. The proposal was framed in what I thought close to being the narrowest terms possible short of a rehash of GNG.
@The second sentence of your preceding comment does not appear to be constructive. James500 (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
as I predicted, a long winded response. LibStar (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Comments like that ought to be redacted as unconstructive. James500 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
and persistently pushing the idea this is a snow keep is unconstructive. some advice, less long winded responses would be seen less of WP:BLUDGEON which you've done in many discussions. LibStar (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I did not mention the snowball clause in my answer to Reyk. There is a limit to the level of conciseness that can be achieved. James500 (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Question: Would anyone object if I was to initiate a snap RfC on the proposal as I originally had it (which I think would have a reasonable chance of passing)? (Bearing in mind that proposals are normally rejected rather than overwritten). James500 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    • One process should end before another is started. Let the MfD close first. If it is kept you are welcome to un-do my changes prior to opening an RfC assuming no one else has edited the page. I seriously doubt it will pass since it is trying to claim inherent notability for several things. All you said in the draft is everything listed is notable "unless it violates BLP" which seems to me to be a bunch of empty verbiage since I can not envision, and you have not stated, how creating an article that simply says "John Smith is the Ambassador to Foo from Bar", which is all an article needs to say according to your version of the draft, can possibly violate BLP. JbhTalk 11:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - We don't delete Wikipedia history in fact. This is valid as a proposal. Otherwise start another one that reflects what everyone wants. But this is not a deletion case.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
this argument provides no rationale for keep. "Don't delete Wikipedia history" is meaningless. As many have pointed this is not valid as a proposal as it did not even reflect long established consensus, for example stating all ambassadors are notable totally ignores a lengthy community discussion months ago on WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
""Don't delete Wikipedia history" is meaningless" is nonsense. MfD has always refused to engage in policy debate. It means that delete arguments have to establish that the page is not a real proposal. If this was previously covered at WP:BIO, then it should be redirected to WP:BIO with a link to the previous discussion in the edit summary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
As I have repeatedly pointed out, proposals don't have to reflect existing consensus, as one of their functions is to propose that we agree to a new consensus. The statement that ambassadors are notable did not ignore the discussion at WT:BIO, but was in fact actually based on that discussion. What I took away from that discussion, and the essay WP:DIPLOMAT and its talk page, is that there is a high degree of support, from many editors, that ambassadors are generally notable, partly based on analogy to SOLDIER, their obvious importance, and they level of coverage they normally receive. Even if that proposition has not quite achieved consensus yet (and I am not convinced it that hasn't), it is very near to doing so, and there is a very high degree of probability that it will achieve consensus in the future. In any event, those discussions did not include any RfC. Since normal discussion on any talk page tends to be dominated by a small clique of editors who regularly edit it, an RfC is always likely to produce a different result. We are overdue for an RfC on all of these things (bilateral relations, diplomats, their buildings, treaties and other agreements). If I can't bring one here, there will be four RfCs on different talk pages. A single RfC would be simpler and more convenient, as these issues are connected.
  • A redirect to BIO would be inappropriate, as bilateral relations, embassies and treaties are outside the scope of that page, and were not generally discussed there. As a distinct subject, this is entitled to its own SNG, instead of being confusingly broken up over several pages. James500 (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Do not worry. Libstar and Smokey are just showing muscles. I am not impressed. Their tactics of showing muscles are not very effective. That Libstar is bludgeon every AfD that he is involved in is a tell sign of the users inexperience. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Have we met elsewhere? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes in Havanna in 1989 do you remember?--BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I think you have me mistaken. I may be clumsy, but do not habitually show muscles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete - A throwback to old Article Rescue Squad dogma, and needless guideline/rule creep to boot. The WP:GNG is sufficient to cover bilateral relations articles. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The notion that it is a throwback of any kind is an argument in favor of not deleting failed proposals or else we doom future editors to repeat this history. Better to keep and see it tagged {{failed}}, if you are right. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
(1) I don't see how this is a throwback to ARS dogma, as I am not a member of the ARS and I don't recall seeing this on any of their project pages (perhaps Tarc, or someone else, could provide a link to a page that evidences the existence of this alleged dogma?). This proposal is largely based on discussions I have participated in or read, at AfD, and on the pages of various policies, guidelines, essays, proposals and projects. It is also obvious common sense. In any event, if the entire ARS have expressed support for this, that is a very good sign, because the likelihood of this becoming a guideline is proportional to the number of editors who support it, and the many members of ARS are no exception. (2) By definition, this page cannot be guideline or rule creep, because a proposal is neither a guideline nor a rule. In any event, the accepted means of dealing with rule creep is demotion (where the old policy or guideline is marked as historical), not deletion. This approach is mandated by our policy on policies and guidelines. (3) GNG is not sufficient to cover articles on any subject. We need SNG for all subjects. (a) GNG is highly subjective, and confers a level of editorial discretion that we cannot realistically assume a sufficient proportion of our editors will be fit to be trusted with. This encyclopedia can edited by anyone, including, at least in theory, persons of low intelligence or inadequate education or knowledge (who can't understand what they are !voting for) and all sorts of cranks, trolls, anti-intellectuals, snobs, bigots, POV warriors, and persons with a nihlistic lust for wanton destruction or some other irrational compulsion to delete as many articles as possible. Participation at AfD is so low that there might be an unacceptably high statistical probability that, every so often, such editors will converge on a particular AfD and produce the wrong outcome. Even amongst the rest of us, participation at AfD is so low that GNG is unlikely to produce thoroughly consistent and correct results, and it doesn't appear to. (b) Because GNG is entirely dependent on the level of coverage, it is, as a proxy for real notability, vulnerable to systematic bias in the sources available. We can expect it to underestimate the notability of topics about history, and especially the distant past (because most writing materials are biodegradable, the absence of printing and other technology, and for the following reasons, since the past was a poorer place) and poor countries (because the people there can't afford to buy as many books, higher rates of illiteracy, and, since there is less incentive to advertise to poor people, lower advertising revenues to support newspapers and other periodicals, news and other websites etc, which typically carry ads in addition to news etc factual content). (4) To summarise, the !vote above contains no valid rationale for deletion. James500 (talk) 11:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, what a breathless agitated rant! Please, read what you've written and try to understand how it sounds to other people. Reyk YO! 14:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
My comments were neither breathless, nor agitated, nor a rant. I was completely calm at the time at the time of writing that post. It would take a lot more than what Tarc wrote to upset me. In fact, compared to all the unpleasant personalised accusations above and below on this page, I thought his comments were essentially benign, though I did not agree with his arguments, and felt the new arguments advanced were sufficiently plausible that they required an answer containing a proper explanation. I suppose that if you were to read that post out loud in a comic shrill voice, it would sound silly, but so would your own posts. I'm afraid that if you think I am agitated or ranting, you are imagining things. Your perception of my emotional state is not reality. It really is all in your head. If you want to appreciate my comments in the vein they were intended, just imagine that I am an emotionless ice man or robot, acting only on logic, who speaks in a monotone voice, which he never raises and which betrays no emotion of any kind whatsoever. Just imagine that you are listening to a machine or a block of ice. That would be much closer to the truth than the notion I was throwing a temper tantrum, screaming and bursting into tears, which I was not. James500 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Wow, yet another rant, this time ranting that the previous rant wasn't a rant. Methinks you doth protest too much. You'd like me to believe you're an emotionless automaton, but the tone and content of your repetitious tirades do not reflect that. What I see is not a robot or a block of ice but spittle flecks going everywhere. Hint: stuff like "cranks, trolls, anti-intellectuals, snobs, bigots, POV warriors, and persons with a nihlistic lust for wanton destruction or some other irrational compulsion to delete as many articles as possible" sounds completely unhinged. Reyk YO! 17:06, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I assure you that your perception is erroneous. James500 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That's nice, but I will back my perception and good judgment over your assurances every day of the week. BTW, learn how to indent properly. Reyk YO! 17:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON if I ever saw it, watch as James500 does another long winded convoluted response to this again. LibStar (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
That essay is nonsense. I've been meaning to write another essay debunking it for some time. James500 (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I've been on WP several years now and encountered 100s of editors and you meet WP:BLUDGEON , excessive long winded convoluted responses and constant refusal to accept others point of view, continuing arguing and arguing in the magic hope of getting snow keeps. Seriously, people are tiring of it and not reading your long winded text. LibStar (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The short version of what is wrong with BLUDGEON is, that since consensus is not a vote, and depends on the quality of arguments, we cannot put an arbitrary word limit on discussions, as opposed to forbidding mere repetition, because it would make it impossible to assess consensus, because there is a finite limit to the level of conciseness with which some arguments can be presented. Such a limit would altogether prevent some valid arguments from being moved by anyone, unless the number of participants was huge. BLUDGEON is only an essay and it happens to be incompatible with policy. None of your criticisms of me is accurate an I could throw some of them straight back at you. You, for example, engage in an excessive amount of mere repetition, saying things you have already said once over and over and over again, in a way that contributes nothing to this discussion, seemingly in a bid to shout the other side down. If that isn't BLUDGEON, nothing is. Your answer to this post is sure to repeat your "long winded" remark, for the millionth time, with no new meaningful arguments, something of which I am growing extremely tired and should not have to read. I've also been on Wikipedia several years now and encountered hundreds of editors. So what? How is that relevant? No one with a normal attention span would be tired of my comments, and they are no longer than is absolutely necessary. Even BLUDGEON, in all its extremism, doesn't argue that we have to agree with other people's opinions. I'm not trying to get snow keeps, merely to answer novel arguments/ideas that have not previously been discussed, having not appeared in earlier !votes, and need to be discussed. James500 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I didn't actually read his response; not at all interested in verbose inclusionist harangues anymore, I had my fill of that years ago. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
agreed Tarc, if there was ever a case study of BLUDGEON, I've now found it after years on Wikipedia. Why would anyone waste their time on James's long winded convoluted excuse ridden off topic verbosity which has zero impact on the outcome? No closing admin would read it. But James always wants to be the last comment. So James can you show some restraint and not respond and not take all the oxygen? LibStar (talk) 13:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Why don't you show some restraint and stop making endless personal attacks, to the effect of James is this and James is that and James is the other? If this conversation is going off topic, it because you are the one taking it off topic by attacking me over and over and over again, in a way that has no relevance to the purpose of the MfD. Would you prefer it if, instead of answering your off topic attacks, I was to just collapse them in a box headed "off topic"? I, or someone else, could probably do that under the talk page guidelines. I really think that this entire thread should be collapsed from Reyk's "breathless agitated rant" comment above onwards. James500 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Do not worry James, Libstar can't help himself. The guy always goes on personal attacks. Just ignore the worst and try to stay on point, there is no point in trying to reason with the person behind the username. --BabbaQ (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Not a personal attack , at least 3 editors have pointed out James's excessive long winded responses that add nothing to the discussion. It's a true case of WP:BLUDGEON. The tactic of James is to consistently use extremely long replies to grind down any opposing view. He'll respond again to this because simply he can't resist. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment This is why we will never see a topic specific notability standard in this area. 'Include everything' vs 'GNG is good enough' no one wants to get in the crossfire.

    GNG is what all subject specific notability guidelines should be based on but the definition of 'significant' needs to be addressed for particular topics. We failed with, at least, NPOLITICIAN, NATHELETE and Populated Places and we now have thousands of articles that will never be anything other than stubs. The desire to keep this from happening in the realm of international relations is preventing any progress on providing guidance, even simply codifying the consensus from AfD, on long standing notability issues in the topic area. Someday sanity may reign but this is not the day.

    I have un-struck my delete above and cited WP:IAR. An RfC has no chance of passing now and a 'snap RFC' of the original draft, as proposed by James500 above will poison the well for any near or medium term attempt, should anyone be foolish enough to try, legitimate proposal. In particular it would head off the discussions on Ambassadorial notability that has been going on for months and smother any potential emerging consensus in a repeat of this charlie foxtrot. JbhTalk 19:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: I would like to also direct your attention to Wikipedia:Notability (history) and Wikipedia:Notability (publishing), created by the same user and used by him in the same way. Keφr 08:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
interesting pick up. I expect James500 will now do a long rant about why these other proposals are valid. LibStar (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I am starting to see that James500 is prone to writing a lot of mistaken things, too many to spend time addressing, and that his proposals are very badly incomparable with WP:N. He has a right to host these opinions in his userspace, but they should be removed from project space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, your edit summary is correct. In fact if I had read these other "notability proposals" I would not have even tried to work on this one. I simply can not understand the thought process that led to statements like "In general, the longer a person has been dead, the more likely they are to be notable". I feel foolish for trying to improve a draft the original author, based on these other "drafts", seems to have had no genuine intention of bringing to RfC. JbhTalk 11:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
The passage in question is based on User:Bearian/Standards, and I have added "A person who died before the year 1450 is notable if their name is known to us" which is basically what he and the other user agreed on, with which I also agree. I have every intention of bringing them to RfC and I will be happy to move immediately to RfC, since I think they will pass in their present form. James500 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
"A person who died before the year 1450 is notable if their name is known to us" is by far the most arbitrary and laughable inclusion criteria I have ever encountered, and after dealing with the ARS for years, that is quite an accomplishment. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
1450 is the accepted date of the introduction of printing in Europe (what is referred to as the "Gutenberg Era" in Bearian's user essay and the quote from User:Ihcoyc it cites. Surely you know why the introduction of printing is the obvious date? James500 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

People kept handwritten records before 1450. LibStar (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Handwritten records are significantly less likely to survive because they are harder to reproduce without printing. The things rot away faster than they can be copied by hand. James500 (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I find such a thought process quite easy to imagine: if you wish to gain more insight into it, you might also want to look at Wikipedia:Deletion reform 2015, Wikipedia:Proposed deletion review and James500's addition to WP:ATA. However, I think discussing the thought processes of individual editors is not really what WP:MFD is meant for. Keφr 12:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Hey, the three of you, the teachers at the kindergarten wants their kids back. Please return. Or perhaps act your age. Just a suggestion :)--BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • comment can't see any snow keep here, in fact a growing consensus for delete. But I'm sure there will be some 500 character + response to this. LibStar (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    You are fishing Libstar... --BabbaQ (talk) 11:39, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
you're the lone James500 supporter he is fast losing support as a overranting editor. LibStar (talk) 11:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I find this tangent quite superfluous, to say the least. Keφr 12:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment- if this is deleted, as it should be, then I recommend MfDing the other two phony notability guidelines as well. All three seem to have been written for the purpose of bolstering James500's case at a handful of AfDs, with the goal of making it look like there's some actual community support for his position. Hey look, there's this proposed guideline called Notability (history). That means it's had community input, lots of discussion, and is up for an RfC to make it official, right? Well, no. What we weren't supposed to notice is that James500 squeezed them out himself just hours previously so that he could cite them at AfD, that nobody else has even looked at them, and that he's just going to abandom them afterwards. If James500 wants to write self-serving nonsense essays he can do that in his user space. This is a deceptive and inappropriate use of Wikipedia space. Reyk YO! 11:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Agree. JbhTalk 12:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I concur as well. It's obvious what James500 agenda is, and he will not stop until he has used every last excuse/deflection possible. LibStar (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Reyk, what you accuse me of is simply not true. I've explained why above. I have tried very hard to assume good faith, but in view of the persistent misrepresentation, and the fact that I know you are strongly deletionist from past AfDs, I can no longer do so. The only motive that I can see is a desire to make sure that an RfC does not happen, to make sure the thing doesn't become a guideline. James500 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: Both NHISTORY and NPUBLISHING are ready for RfC. NHISTORY is taken verbatim from an existing guideline, OBK, and is certain to pass. NPUBLISHING is an obvious common sense explanation of GNG, is essentially the same as an existing guideline, AUTHOR, and is likely to pass. If I didn't put them up for RfC immediately, it is because I was hoping for more feedback. In my view the only purpose an MfD on those could serve is to game the system by trying to prevent an RfC that is likely to pass, and the only appropriate course of action is to start both RfCs now. I cannot see how it can be acceptable for a group of strongly deletionist editors, who must know that they are not close to being a representative sample of the community, to seek to prevent an RfC on a proposal because that proposal is strongly at variance with their personal opinions, especially when that proposal is an obvious rehash of existing guidelines (AUTHOR and OBK). I am going to tag them as full proposals now. James500 (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It hardly needs to be said, but both proposals are complete junk. They're obviously not fully developed proposals, my opinion is that they should be summarily rejected, and I have said so on their talk pages. Reyk YO! 14:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
agree. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, junk. However you have not actually opened and posted an RfC nor have you posted notices for it on proper talk pages like related notability and WikiProject pages nor at the Village Pump. If these have so much support it is now time to advertise the RfCs and get community feedback. Simply changing {{draft proposal}} to {{proposal}} does nothing and gives the impression those pages have progressed from draft to proposed through input and refinement. This is not the case. Please put them up for RfC properly or they should be returned to draft status and MfD. JbhTalk 15:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @User:Jbhunley: A little patience, please. It will probably happen in the next twenty four hours; I don't do anything that quickly. I take it that you agree that an immediate RfC is within the rules. They cannot be returned to draft once proposed. A proposer does not require a second. James500 (talk) 16:17, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • If it were my place to make the call I would say they are drafts not proposals. In general I feel that you are simply trying to change the drafts to proposals to avoid MfD. You have done no significant work on them since they were written and have, from what I can see, not made a serious attempt to gain input from other editors. I do not know whether policy is in line with my opinion. JbhTalk 19:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • IIRC, the guideline for publishers was advertised on the talk page of WikiProject Books. I don't see what more than that you expect me to do. Where else could I seek input, except at AfD itself? Whilst no one from the WikiProject commented, that could be construed as a silent consensus that means "no objections". The work I have done on them is plenty. SNG do not have to be massively long and full to bursting with every deletionist restriction can be dreamt up. Short and simple is always better, and, by way of comparison, AUTHOR and OBK are both very brief. There is no reason why either of these should be significantly longer. To say that I'm just trying to avoid MfD is a bit strange since an MfD on a proposal (including a draft) is an abuse of process. I could just as easily say that you only want to do an MfD to prevent an RfC, to terminate discussion before it starts. James500 (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:MFD states "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors." This proposal is only 10 days old while we generally discuss proposals for 30 days or more and this is the first I've heard of it myself. This attempt to delete the proposal before it receives full attention from the community is therefore quite improper. Andrew D. (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: If you want to join in the discussion then we will have an active proposal. As it stands we had an 'everything is notable' draft written by a single user who seems to have written it simply to quote at AfD. I foolishly tried to improve it to be more in line with current consensus not realizing that would make it 'active' and harder to MfD.

As far as I can tell this is the version James500 wants to call a 'snap RfC' (Whatever that is.) on not the current version which I re-wrote. JbhTalk 19:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • The page in question has only existed for a few days and has been actively edited and discussed in that time. The proposal doesn't cease to be active just because one participant realises that they have been foolish. This attempt to delete it is disruptive in that it tries to forces the issue by means of an inappropriate process. It's as if there were an international conference and one party tries to demolish the room while the treaty is being discussed. See North Korea–United States relations... Andrew D. (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said in my argument for deletion above there really is not a policy based reason to delete it. I have no issue with it being taken through RfC and I would love it if there were actually some input. That is why I attempted to improve it while the MfD is going on. I do, however, feel that the original author has been creating 'draft proposals' simply to cite them at AfD. If they were presented as drafts on various talk pages and input from other editors was being sought when they were created and before they were cited at AfD I would have another opinion. As it stands three 'draft proposals'none of which, until this MfD, were being worked on or 'advertised' strikes me as gaming the system. My opinion on this is, of course, worth exactly what you paid for it. Maybe a bit less. Cheers. JbhTalk 21:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It is quite normal for editors to create or argue for policy which supports their views. LibStar is likewise trying to delete this page because it would undermine his numerous attempts to delete relations articles. The idea that editors are always disinterested and dispassionate about these things is quite naive. There's presumably a long history of such nominations at MfD and so that's why WP:MFD now discourages such nominations of policy pages. This discussion should be closed and the parties can then wrangle over the page in question. Me, I have better things to do. Andrew D. (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Truth of the day. It is quite interesting to see how different users bludgeon their opinions to the very end. Some worse than others...--BabbaQ (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
you are trying to keep this article because it would support your attempts to keep bilateral articles when sourcing is poor and the good old WP:PRESERVE card doesn't work. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
But LibStar, if Andrew supports my proposal, if he favours it becoming a guideline, that immediately negates your entire argument for deleting it, which is based entirely on an ad hominem directed at me personally. So, if you really believe what you just said, you should now gracefully accept defeat and withdraw your nomination. James500 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
  • As requested above, an RfC has begun at Wikipedia talk:Notability (publishing)#Should this become a guideline?. An RfC on the history proposal will not happen tonight as it is now too far into the early hours of the morning. Don't expect anything before tomorrow night. I'm not sure how well I can concentrate on two simultaneous RfCs.
  • Userfication, suggested above, is one thing that not an option in this MfD. Although I do not want this page deleted, I do not want this page in my user space either, and moving it there would interfere with my right to control the content of my user space. It apparent that it would also be used as a means of denigrating me, if it were placed there. It would also prevent further editing and improvement by others. James500 (talk) 23:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
my nomination stands and will not be withdrawn. Let's see if you will continue to dominate this discussion. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
To both James and Libstar, how would it be if you both stopped bickering like kids. It is embarrassing to witness. You both keep the fighting going by giving each other small but obvious insults. Non of you can decide how this AfD will end, and your bickering will obviously be overlooked by the closing admin. If anything, James, please stop taking the bait. --BabbaQ (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
BabbaQ, I think you are right. I apologise for taking the bait. James500 (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

babbaQ, I thought you didn't want to interact with me anymore... I guess you can't help yourself. Regards LibStar (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that you and James keep using a AfD that I am involved in as your personal playground... I guess you can't help yourself. As usual. I will take my own advice to heart and not take your bait :) Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 08:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You just replied QED. LibStar (talk) 08:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

You just can't help yourself :) Lol.. you are hilarious. Now keep bickering with James so you get your daily dose of fights :) You are so inexperienced when it comes to Wikipedia... that you are allowed access to AfDs are beyond me :) Bammmm! --BabbaQ (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This one is my all time favourite bs comment from you. It shows how you only want to provoke people and has no end to how low you can sink to get that precious reaction...it must be difficult feeling insecure and knowing that your skills as a Wikipedia editor is below par. I see overall your edits and your AfDs are really flawed. The inexperience and the total contempt of Wikipedia from you shines through. --BabbaQ (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Many AfDs I nominate result in deletion. Remember that time you said keep per admin . And all the admin do is relist the AfD! You have a track record of poor reasoning in afds, and failing to provide sources even when asked by 3 editors LibStar (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
That is your standard line, "remember the time you said keep per admin". Then I say, remember the time you insisted that Murder of Joanna Yeates would never go anywhere and should be deleted. Today it is FA article. You have a track record of being a deletionist even in the most obvious keep cases.. and pointy comments towards anyone having a different opinion than yourself.. so what is your point really. You contact me on my talk page and at an AfD. And then you complain about me wanting to contact you. Come on Libstar.... stop baiting. Cheerio. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

despite others warning you for your personal attacks on me and telling James500 not to respond and ignore me, what do you continue to do? Keep on responding. Happy to pretend to be a friend to others and dish out advice but you hardly practice what you preach. I'll tell you not to respond but you can't resist. Let's see if you stop now. LibStar (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

*Delete. I may give LibStar another barnstar for his continued work on ferreting out these absurd Xcountry-Ycountry articles that are just filling space. A fake guideline, posted to live space without any sort of consensus is not only contrary to the process, it muddies the waters of the AfD process. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

  • (1) This is not a fake guideline. It could not possibly be called one as it is not marked as a guideline. It is not marked with Template:Guideline. It is presently marked as a draft proposal. Nor is it a fake anything else. (2) The policy on proposals makes it very clear that a proposal or draft proposal requires no consensus whatsoever to merely to be included in the project namespace. There is no such process as you allege. It would be wholly inappropriate for it to be in the userspace because that would prevent other editors working on it. (3) Several people support the continued inclusion of the draft proposal in the project namespace, so we now have all the consensus we could want. (4) This could not possibly muddy the waters at AfD unless participants have lost the ability to read and don't know what the words "draft" and "proposal" mean. Anyone who does not know what a draft proposal is, and how it is different from a guideline lacks the competence necessary to contribute at AfD and should not be editing there. (5) There is already strong consensus that Xcountry-Ycountry articles are not absurd or filling out space, and our personal feelings on that are not a valid grounds for deleting a proposal. James500 (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep and clearly mark as draft, proposal or failed proposal. Worst case, userify. I don't think it's relevant to comment on the merits of the proposal or James500's possible ulterior motives for creating it. The fact of the matter is that it's a draft or proposal that has had good faith discussion on its talk page. That can and should be used as a starting point for considering another draft in the future. That's the reason we typically keep archives of good faith discussions. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, comments on ulterior motives and "history of James500" is irrelevant. One of the best points made in a while here. --BabbaQ (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  • KeepWP:MFD states "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page." The page's talk page has received relatively recent input. Mark accordingly after discussion results in some form of consensus, and if not, mark as historical. North America1000 14:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

June 23, 2015[edit]

User:\wowzeryest\/Trigonometric Functions Usage[edit]

User:\wowzeryest\/Trigonometric Functions Usage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace being used to promote the user's mathematical theory. Appears to be improper use of userspace and policy violation. No indication that this would or could be turned into a Wikipedia article that would pass WP:GNG. User has been busy using Wikipedia to promote their personal mathematical theories through article creation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octuple-precision floating-point format and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:\wowzeryest\/possible slope formula. -- WV 01:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:\wowzeryest\/Functions Library[edit]

User:\wowzeryest\/Functions Library (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace being used to promote the user's mathematical theory. Appears to be improper use of userspace and policy violation. No indication that this would or could be turned into a Wikipedia article that would pass WP:GNG. User has been busy using Wikipedia to promote their personal mathematical theories through article creation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octuple-precision floating-point format and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:\wowzeryest\/possible slope formula. -- WV 01:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Please let the AfD play out first. With related content in userspace, this sandboxing is more than appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, the content seems vaguely programming-related. Still, speedy as nonsense. —Keφr 17:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:\wowzeryest\/possible slope formula[edit]

User:\wowzeryest\/possible slope formula (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Userspace being used to promote the user's mathematical theory. Appears to be improper use of userspace and policy violation. No indication that this would or could be turned into a Wikipedia article that would pass WP:GNG. User has been busy using Wikipedia to promote their personal mathematical theories through article creation. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Octuple-precision floating-point format. -- WV 01:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Rubbish. Delete. —Keφr 17:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

June 28, 2015[edit]

Talk:Creationism/Hinducreationism[edit]

Talk:Creationism/Hinducreationism (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an 8 years old article created in the talk section. Author showed no intention to move it to the main namespace. I think it should be deleted. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

June 27, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia:Abuse response/NominateWhoisQuiz[edit]

Wikipedia:Abuse response/NominateWhoisQuiz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Wikipedia:Abuse response/NominateWhoisQuiz/Doc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

These 2 pages from 2011 have no inlinks from any other pages. From searching[8] I've only found one page where this has been substituted. In other words, this appears to be an initiative that hasn't gone anywhere and is now unnecessary wp infrastructure. I can't see any reason for preserving this (in live pages) for "historical" reasons. DexDor (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9   14:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hesitant to delete a page written by an editor in good standing, especially if it may have some unseen purpose, but it is very hard to see useful purpose. Recommend soft deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

June 17, 2015[edit]

User:Gekritzl/Deletion gestapo[edit]

User:Gekritzl/Deletion gestapo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

WP:POLEMIC by a now indef'ed account. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep although you may disagree with this and it may be inflammatory, it is a valid point of view expressed in an essay. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:14, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:NOTWEBHOST. This is not WP policy, so no need to forever host this stale personal editorial. -- P 1 9 9   00:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • 'Delete I think it's meant to be an article draft and not an essay. But it's written in too inflammatory a way to every become a viable article. Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia already exists. Brustopher (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Anders Feder/ImproveIslamArticles[edit]

User:Anders Feder/ImproveIslamArticles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page contains polemic materials and hence should be deleted. نان (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep Page doesn't fall under WP:POLEMIC as it doesn't try to name and shame any specific editors. The polemical statements within are directly related to improving Wikipedia. Bosstopher (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher: So there are some polemical statements! In what way are they "directly related to improving Wikipedia". How about those which attack some editors and/or entities such as "the Muslim", "The Iranian"? نان (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Polemical statements are allowed so long as they directly relate to wikipedia and improving it. I would agree with you if Anders was attacking all Muslims or all Iranians as bad editors, but that's not what he's doing at all. He's not naming any specific editors. Though I must admit the thing about them putting fingers in their ears and doing an ululation is a very tasteless ethnic stereotype jokeand something Anders should remove. (@Anders Feder: Pinging to make you aware of the request) Bosstopher (talk) 23:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. What is tasteless is the skewed editing, not in some obscure user page, but in dozens of mainspace articles due to User:نان/Mhhossein and his close collaborator User:Srahmadi[9]/User:AliAkar[10]/User:M.Sakhaie[11]/etc.--Anders Feder (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Bosstopher: Another personal attack by Anders Feder which I would not say and is not related to our discussion subject. Any way, thanks, although the page needs more attention. Mhhossein (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Could the closing admin please take this conversation about the content of the page into account. Bosstopher (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - This should be kept. It is clearly aimed at Wikipedia and it is for the purposes of improving articles. Mbcap (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Mbcap: Could you please say how these attacks may 'clearly' help to improve Wikipedia? نان (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
نان Sure, I can elaborate. Paid stooges of the Iranian theocracy are certainly very disruptive to Wikipedia. They are the sort of editors who are fanatical and aim to disrupt the content, tone and balance of articles so that there is a pro-Iranian slant on articles relating to politics and religion. These are the very editors who aim to inject polemic material into Wikipedia. Therefore I am at a loss as to why you have put this up for deletion because the paragraph in question tries to raise awareness about a category of editors who disrupt the Wiki with polemic material. Mbcap (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Dear @Mbcap:! Awareness about who? how can one understand that an editor is a member of that category? Even if we suppose there are some such editors, we should also consider that there are many many fanatical editor out there, so do we have to shout that with polemical statements and tag them with inappropriate qualities and attack them? I think raising the awareness is not a suitable justification because one may do that in a more polite manner. Mhhossein (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
If there is a "more polite" way to raise awareness about the tendentious editing due to you and other Khamenei supporters, you should go ahead and do it. I look forward to your efforts in that area.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Mhhossein to answer your question, it is raising awareness about stooges of the Iranian theocracy who seek to disrupt Wikipedia by pushing a point of view. They are an immense waste of time. As an example here is a conversation which wasted several hours of life which one simply cannot reclaim. You may still ask "awareness about who" so I shall attempt to enlighten. This is how a basic Khamenei zombie works. He either dedicates his time to politics and religion, or even both. For politics he likes to use PressTV and Fars news, sources which are a laughable at the very least. For religious articles, the Khamenei zombie likes to use http://www.al-islam.org/ which no doubt is run and funded by the Iranian state. In this way the Khamenei zombie can cause disruption to politics related articles and most definitely has destroyed numerous Islam related articles. I would also like to state that this deletion proposal is an absolute waste of time. Work should be focused on the mainspace and not on some users subpage. Mbcap (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap: Read the page more carefully. He said that they were not 'paid stooge' in his opinion! However, I meant to indicate that using inappropriate language is not a suitable way to raise that mentioned 'awareness'. Now, you are acting in a same manner as Feder. Of course, you don't have to waste your time on this thread. Mhhossein (talk) 13:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Mhhossein I agree I do not have to waste my time but neither do all the other editors who spend time cleaning up the mess caused by those in question. What is not an appropriate way to behave is polluting Wikipedia articles with bogus sources rather than using sources from Brill publishers or encyclopaedia Iranica. The proposed text for deletion is an entirely appropriate way to raise awareness. May I suggest that you help in rectifying the problem with these polluted mainspace articles. Mbcap (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Mbcap Raising awareness is an issue, while how to raise the awareness is another! Mainspace articles are not the subject of our discussion here and I may pay to it in it's place. Mhhossein (talk) 00:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete Based on WP:REMOVEUNCIVIL (Removal of personal attacks) some part of it which contains uncivil attributes against a group of the other editors should be deleted. Particularly, "The Happy Iranian" is a promote biased approach against a group of the editors.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Should we also delete WP:RS and WP:NPOV because they promote a "biased approach" against "a group of editors", namely POV-pushers who use unreliable sources? Or is it only "groups of editors" covered in my subpage that you are interested in covering for?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Those policies and guidelines do not accuse any particular group by using phrases such as "The Happy Iranian". Please, read WP:IMPARTIAL carefully.--Seyyed(t-c) 08:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sa.vakilian: "Those policies and guidelines do not accuse any particular group" Nor does my user subpage. It describes a source of an immense amount of propagandistic, POV editing in article mainspace. (And WP:IMPARTIAL does not mean that POV editing is acceptable, as I've already explained to you here.)--Anders Feder (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I agree with you that there are some users who do not obey wiki policies and want to promote their own beliefs, however this does not let anyone make Stereotype. For example, there may be some Zionists who want to promote their ideologies, but it is not a good excuse for anyone to write "The Happy Israelis", etc.--Seyyed(t-c) 11:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Sa.vakilian: The page is not "making stereotype". It is describing a class of editors who are causing astronomical amounts of editing time going to waste in cleaning up their disruption on Wikipedia, such as in the incident Mbcap referred to. As for Zionists, they have been dealt with a long time ago, presumably because someone dared and bothered to speak out against them: they are now under general sanctions. Would you support something like that being imposed on Iran-related articles too, in place of the small note on the user subpage you are referring to?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my example. As I know you and we spoke about the issue in the other occasions, you tend to generalize a specific problem and make a general category! You can use a more neutral language in the page.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
This is really the crux of the hypocrisy. You want to leave those who agree with you free hands to continue wasting everybody's time and screwing up Wikipedia, while playing the victim at the same time. It does not work like that.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC) (back later)
All else aside the line about editors shutting their ears and doing ululations is pretty much the epitome of "making a stereotype." I'd have no issues with a page describing the "Happy Israeli" as long as it didn't talk about shutting their ears and drowning out the noise by singing Hava Nagilah. Bosstopher (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would have to completely agree with Bosstopher. The ulutation part could go - but it is absurd to suggest the page as a whole is polemical. Other than that one statement, I don't see a single issue with it. Elspamo4 (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I propose @Anders Feder: to rewrite some parts of the page based on WP:IMPARTIAL.--Seyyed(t-c) 23:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The comparison with Zionists is nonsensical. I have worked with editors on the Israel page who may be Zionists and I have found that those with whom I have interacted are very professional and abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. There is no problem in anyone holding any view, no matter how objectionable it is as long as you leave such views at the door and edit the Wiki within the spirit of building an encyclopaedia. Causing mass disruption to mainspace articles with bogus sources published by propaganda outlets leads to very poor quality articles. There are many such articles and this problem needs to be addressed at a far higher level than the subpage of Anders Feder. Therefore we should be having a discussion on how to address this problem rather than getting Anders Feder to delete a reference that is displeasing to a group of editors. If it is the ululation reference that is the issue here, thought I do not think that is the crux of the problem for the objecting parties, then I would request that said parties attempt to reach a resolution that would be acceptable to all. As for the other parts of the page then I disagree with the suggestion by Seyyed. It should not be altered in anyway unless Anders Feder decides otherwise. Mbcap (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Mbcap: Excuse me, but you are not aware of the role of an "example" in an argument. Example is just for simplification of the issue neither the reason nor the proof! So discussion about the example looks funny!!! There are many policies and guidelines which cover what you are concerned about. However, We are ready to discuss and improve the policies against the promoting of the propaganda by anyone not just Iranians or Muslims. Finally, the problem of the Andres Feder's page is stereotyping. --Seyyed(t-c) 03:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Seyyed So for the sake of raising awareness about those promoting propaganda we should in no way delete this subpage. Mbcap (talk) 03:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I will change my vote if Andres changes its tone. --Seyyed(t-c) 07:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for conclusion @Anders Feder, Mhhossein, Mbcap, Bosstopher, and Elspamo4: I think most of us agree to keep the page but improve its tone so that it does not violate WP:IMPARTIAL.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Seyyed Rubbish. The only thing everyone agrees on is to keep the page as it is. Mbcap (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Everyone! I guess you have not read the above discussions!!!--Seyyed(t-c) 00:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Reject proposal for conclusion - your conclusion is totally wrong. Mbcap (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

June 15, 2015[edit]

User:223.255.230.72/Hamran Ambrie[edit]

User:223.255.230.72/Hamran Ambrie (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. No RS source and can't tell without an interpretation if its salvageable. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. Untranslated foreign language. -- P 1 9 9   00:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep, move to Draft space and list at WP:PNT. Language is Indonesian, and I think the subject is possibly notable, see for instance here and here. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

June 7, 2015[edit]

User:Papillonderecherche/The Hancock Amendment[edit]

User:Papillonderecherche/The Hancock Amendment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. User's last Wikipedia edit was on June 12, 2013. Safiel (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep. Trivial user space page with absolutely no need for any other user to fiddle. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleting occasional contributors edit histories is unwelcoming to them, adding barriers to them returning. This user took the trouble to register and made substantial contributions. It should be assumed that he used AfC to make this page for some reason, as some note or memory aid or whatever, no explanation is required. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
(1) Why is there a desire to empty these categories?
(2) The page is removed from the category by replacing it with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}.
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as test edit. This could have been tagged with {{Db-g2}}. -- P 1 9 9   18:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"This criterion does not apply to pages in the user namespace". Careless deletions in others userspace is damaging to the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

June 2, 2015[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox2[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/sandbox2 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

This is an old test sandbox. It's not an actual article for creation so it wouldn't likely qualify under G13 and I don't see the need to keep another sandbox that probably isn't being watched. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess if Theopolisme has no objections it could go. Don't see how we gain much by deleting it though. Gigs (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rana Tarakji[edit]

Draft:Rana Tarakji (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This draft which started as an article in talk space exactly duplicates the article Rana Tarakji‎ and has been constructed by the same editor, possibly as insurance in case the article is deleted.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Ironically, if Velella had left the page where it was created, as a talk page, I would have deleted it as the talk page of a deleted article. However, Velella has moved it to draft space, and it is far less clear that it should be deleted, since creating a draft so that it can be worked on if the article is deleted seems to me to be perfectly legitimate. However, it is not at all clear to me that the editor who created the page intends it as a draft article to be worked on, so deletion may be reasonable. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete. I have now looked further at the history. I find that the editor has created at least seven copies of this self-promotional content, as a articles, user pages, an article talk page, and a user talk page, using at least two accounts to do so. It is clear that it is an attempt to spam, and all copies should be deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep Whatever its origins, it is now a legitimate article draft. It is unlikely to be improved, at which point it can be deleted through WP:CSD#G13 when it becomes stale. But it does no harm as a draft article until that time. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Comment Up to a point I agree with WikiDan61, which is why I didn't say "delete" in my first comment. However, I don't agree that it is "a legitimate article draft". It is spam, and as such is not legitimate, and qualifies for speedy deletion. We normally allow leeway in draft articles, and don't immediately delete good faith drafts which would be deleted as articles, to allow a chance for their authors to improve them, but there is no good reason for making an exception when there is no evidence at all that the author has any intention of doing anything of the sort: she appears to have only the intention of using Wikipedia for promotion. The editor who moved it to draft space wants it deleted, so it is difficult really to justify keeping what would otherwise be speedily-deleted on the grounds that it is in draft space. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I have given this some more thought. If the creator of the article shows any sign of interest in improving the page, either by editing it or by commenting in this discussion, then it will be reasonable to give him or her more of a chance, so my "delete" comment above may be regarded as void, and replaced by a "keep". However, if this discussion remains open for a week and the editor has still shown no sign of interest in working to bring the page into line with Wikipedia standards, then my comment above stands. It is not 100% true to say that such a page "does no harm", because experience over the years has taught me that a significant proportion of editors whose only purpose is to use Wikipedia to host a self-promotional page are happy as long as the page stays, no matter whether it has "Draft" at the beginning of the title or not, and allowing such an inappropriate page to remain encourages them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the foregoing comments by User:JamesBWatson. It is obvious that after more than a month, the creator of the article has no interest in improving the page. -- P 1 9 9   14:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

May 29, 2015[edit]

User:Yomesh shah/Jharola[edit]

User:Yomesh shah/Jharola (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Not stale. No reason for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been over four years. WP:G13 for Articles for Creation pages counts six months as stale. This is four times as long. Besides, if the user comes back, it can always be restored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If it can always be restored, that is an excellent reason to use {{Inactive userpage blanked}} instead of deletion. Expecting an old short term Wikipedian to return and navigate to requests for undeletion is a very big ask. The only message he's every been left is your MfD template, which will link to a closed MfD discussion, which will advise no further edits should be made. It's great that you want to clean up these old pages, but you can do it by replacing them with {{Inactive userpage blanked}}. There is no need to invoke an MfD page and a community discussion for innocuous old pages, and as a rule you should have a very good reason to delete pages in another's userspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. If there is ever a need to (re)create an article on this place, this stub shouldn't serve as a starting point: WP:TNT. -- P 1 9 9   16:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. The content itself has not been edited since 26 November 2009‎ (UTC). North America1000 12:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Astroiseur/Asia Source 3[edit]

User:Astroiseur/Asia Source 3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale usespace draft. There's not much worth adding that isn't already at Asia_Source#Asia_Source_3. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Ashraf Elibrachy/Ibrachy Law Firm[edit]

User:Ashraf Elibrachy/Ibrachy Law Firm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Article was created at Ibrachy Law Firm by someone else so I don't know if a history merge is needed. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete as per WP:STALEDRAFT. And redundant to mainspace article. -- P 1 9 9   16:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • WP:HISTMERGE everything before 15:25, 5 November 2009‎ into Ibrachy Law Firm for legal/copyright reasons and delete the remaining edits (This is what would be lost - nothing of value). In any case, I think policy prevents deletion of the pre-5 November 2009 edits as long as the main article stands. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:30, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

May 27, 2015[edit]

Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos[edit]

Talk:Indigo children/For Indigos (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

I found this page linked from the article talk page. It is specifically directed at a particular class of believer and attempts to dissuade the reader from the belief. Clearly this is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Skyerise (talk) 15:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Page is meant to deal with the regular POV-pushers we get on the talk page on this WP:FRINGE topic. It is about as appropriate as having something on Talk:Vaccination explaining why we don't give credence to anti-vaccers. This isn't article content, it's effectively a talk page post. Do you have a policy-based reason for deleting this talk page post that you did not write?
If I were to copy the contents to my computer and post that boilerplate response every time someone came along arguing that we should give equal validity between the works of shysters and scientists, it would be perfectly fine. I could make a template out of it. This was just the most efficient option. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Ian.Thompson. We don't delete talk page discussions unless there is a clear BLP violation. Sundayclose (talk) 16:10, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
This isn't discussion. All that takes is a link into the talk archives. This is a small number of Wikipedia editors taking a position, intentionally created in the talk space even though it is not discussion. Skyerise (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Once again, Skyerise, you're creating your own policies. This is a subpage of the article's talk page. It could easily be moved to the main talk page, but is separate for organization and clarity. Any editor can express any opinion on a talk page. Sundayclose (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
No, that's what WP:ESSAYS are for. We'll see: I doubt editors not in the "crush pseudoscience" clique will buy that argument. Skyerise (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we'll see. I don't recall ever seeing an essay about one article. Sundayclose (talk) 16:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
By 'the "crush pseudoscience" clique', you mean any editor who follows and understands WP:NPOV and actual science? Wikipedia does not give equal validity to WP:FRINGE topics. That is policy as written and as intended. Wikipedia is almost required to dismiss pseudoscience by not giving it article space unless it is adequately covered by mainstream science. If mainstream science is dismissive of the topic, so are we. It is a perfectly legitimate use of a talk page to discourage editors from trying to promote the works of WP:Lunatic charlatans. It is not appropriate to try and censor the talk page posts of others because they discourage delusional advocates from filling the article with their superstitious fantasies. It is not appropriate to 'creatively interpret' existing guidelines or even cite non-existent guidelines to try and accomplish that either. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - article talk pages are to be used as an aid in the development of the article. For a topic on fringe topic such as Indigo children, a sub-page to head off article objections from true believers seems to be a perfectly reasonable approach. If you have specific objections to the way it is worded, then that should be worked out through discussion, but the purpose of the subpage is in line with policy for article talk pages. -- Whpq (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete, or reformulate I'm about as skeptical as they come, and don't believe this indigo crap at all, but come on. This is a page that basically says "we own this page, go take your POV and shove it". Not acceptable, even if I agree with nearly everything you are saying. Gigs (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
If I saved the original post to a text file and copy-pasted it every single time someone came to the talk page complaining "Indigo Children are real, you can't scientifically test spiritual phenomena like psychic powers"... would that be a problem? Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
That would be disruptive to conversation. That aside, the attitude expressed in the page in question is not appropriate to Wikipedia. This isn't something like the appropriate little FAQ on Talk:Creationism, this is an outright assault on these Indigo believers, labeling them delusional among other things. Gigs (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete/archive -- I was thinking "Keep but move and rewrite" but that basically amounts to delete. I can see the value in such notices or FAQ pages, but I have several problems with this one. It sounds like an essay or blog post and it's too long and too patronizing; its main purpose seems to be something other than giving people advice or answers about how to edit the article or why the article is how it is. It's not possible to rewrite that text into something appropriate. And it has to be something appropriate. Letting it stay there in its elevated status above other comments, is like we're endorsing it. I'm not. I think the content of that page can be moved to the talk page's archive. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • keep. not garbage, useful/usable advice. -M.Altenmann >t 14:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Is it Wikipedia-related advice, though? What do you think about my above^ comment? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to Wikipediaspace/userspace as an essay Per comments from others about why this shouldn't be in talkspace. Brustopher (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

May 26, 2015[edit]

User:Akingwel/mezzomarketing[edit]

User:Akingwel/mezzomarketing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Stale userspace draft. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:42, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This does not sound like much of a reason, we do not have any article on this topic Mezzo Marketing, is there any significant reason to delete? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
It's a violation of WP:WEBHOST. If this was an article for submission draft, after six months, it would be permitted under WP:G13. Is there any evidence that an article would stay? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
If you check the page view statistics you'll see there is no basis to your NOTWEBHOST allegation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:WEBHOST is a policy reason. I don't think anyone really looks at each page's views to determine whether or not it's a webhosting issue. Either way, why is there is so much interest in saving some potential article on a marketing company? If someone thinks it could be a real article, userify it yourself, take it to draftspace or just take it live. What is gained by keeping it sitting there within some inactive user's space? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Why? If someone thinks it's a viable draft, they can adopt it themselves or move it to draftspace or whatever. It's been two years since that editor was last here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The "why delete" is a much bigger question. Why not blank, when blanking is a complete solution to any concerns about the content being live, and doesn't involved creating an MfD nomination and wasting valuable forum time on it. Or, even better than blanking, redirect to Mezzo Marketing. We really need a "Options to consider before MfDing" list don't we? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
A cross-space redirect to a red link? Why? Because it's a draft that's been around for years and no one is working on it? Because we should delete it and focus on the ones that could actually be created? Any particular reason that this one should be saved rather than any of the other 900 or so at Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from March 2010? I'm constantly clearing out older ones to make them either (a) published; (b) sent to draftspace for later publication or (c) deleted. There's 47k out there so that would just be a giant backlog that goes nowhere. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. I composed that comment in edit mode, misread Graeme's comment, and didn't realise it was red-linked. Absolutely nothing wrong with a userspace -> mainspace redirect, but no point redirecting to a redlink, that would be silly.
Do I read that you are on a path to listing up to 47k pages at MfD? Why can't you blank everything that you don't think has a future, instead of listing at MfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not support auto-deletion of any userpages, and was not alone at WT:CSD when this was excluded from CSG#G13. Better to shut done the article creation wizard if it creating so much junk. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If even 1% of those pages are useful that's over 450 new articles for here, work that's probably pretty obscure stuff. A lot of it is people just not correcting merging histories as they copy and paste versions so that's fairly quick. I'd rather list them at MFD and get more eyes on them. A few have had someone else volunteer to take it on (or to take it live) which is much better than me just unilaterally blanking someone else's work based on my personal views. I used to list them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Abandoned_Drafts#Articles but those went no where either. And again I've personally restored drafts when editors have returned (more than once, it's someone who's created a draft here that's here rather on their personal website or blog and they've poppped back when/just after being listed at MFD) which I think is fairly normal. Again, why is there such interest in saving an potential article in an inactive user's userspace? No one else will find it, it won't become an article and it's just sitting there for no reason. If someone sees potential, move it to draftspace. It'll at least come up to someone else every few months rather than just lie dormant there. What is gained by having a potential article that never moves forward to either fruition or to deletion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
"I'd rather list them at MFD and get more eyes on them" That's great, but please put more effort into the nomination. Why are more eyes desirable when the obvious remedy of blanking, administratively lite, easily done and undone if there is disagreement. Do you not see that MfD is woefully backlogged and you are adding more busywork to it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Your link contains no explanation as to why blanking is not a good idea. In contrast, bringing every old usersubpage to MfD is a terrible idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon 2/FuelWagonTalkPageSnapshot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This isn't an appropriate namespace for talk space contents. This should either be deleted, or moved somewhere in the user's namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

September 1, 2014[edit]

User:Felipe.ir.1999/KZBN-DE[edit]

User:Felipe.ir.1999/KZBN-DE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy Mexican television stations. (One of several pages from this user proposed for deletion under these criteria.) Raymie (tc) 02:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Special note: Technical issues with Twinkle caused this MfD to never be transcluded or displayed. It has been made available on MfD as of this timestamp: Raymie (tc) 03:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Six hits on DuckDuckGo, four of which are Wikipedia. MER-C 05:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Felipe.ir.1999/XHAXTL-TV[edit]

User:Felipe.ir.1999/XHAXTL-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Wikipedia is not a web host for fantasy Mexican television stations. (One of several articles from this user proposed for deletion under these criteria.) Raymie (tc) 02:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Special note: Technical issues with Twinkle caused this MfD to never be transcluded or displayed. It has been made available on MfD as of this timestamp: Raymie (tc) 03:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. MER-C 05:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Closed discussions[edit]

For archived Miscellany for deletion debates see the MfD Archives.